Synopsis: Earth-trained wizard Quentin is back in Fillory, the Narnia-clone fantasy-turned-reality world he always wanted to be part of. Something is off with the world of magic, though, and a routine tax-collecting sea voyage ends up turning into an epic worlds-spanning adventure--and magic itself hangs in the balance.
Review: The Magician King shed most of the flaws of its predecessor, The Magicians. My main complaints for the first book were the jerky pacing and the unrelatability of the main characters, most especially Quentin. For all of Quentin's shortcomings in this book, at his core he is the common man. He is no longer so deeply defined by misery, though he is still in search of meaning and depth. He is still keen on adventure and heroism as a means to find purpose. All of his magical studies actually come in handy instead of being discarded as soon as conflict arises. And he actually learns from what happens to him and around him. He grows. It's a great thing.
The pacing was WAY better this time around, though it still could have been improved upon. I know the reasoning for bouncing back and forth between events as they are happening in the storyline and Julia's flashbacks, and it was important that the Julia revelations came slowly throughout the plot, but it was still a bit awkward at times to jump between such disparate perspectives and timelines.
Some of the secondary characters were either needless or caricatures of their first-book-selves, which was sad but not terrible.
Everything that the book did right it did really right. The core conflict was mysterious and huge, and was revealed bit by bit, brilliantly. The fantasy was fantastical, the mythology rich. The vocabulary was varied, interesting, and pointedly precise. The ending was daring, wrenching, and tied things up nicely while leaving everything wide open for the finale. I can't wait for the last book to come out. 5 stars.
Friday, April 11, 2014
Sunday, March 30, 2014
book review: lev grossman - the magicians
Synopsis: Brilliant, socially-awkward and ever-miserable Quentin wants more than his humdrum Brooklyn life, and seems to get it when he suddenly tests into a mysterious magical boarding school in upstate New York. He studies (and gets very, very drunk very, very often) for four years, a period intermixed with minor and major hijinks. For some reason, even in a magical world, he still finds himself miserable. Then he graduates and tries to live life to its fullest, only to find that he's still miserable. So when he realizes that (spoiler, though it's heavily foreshadowed and patently obvious from about page 5) his favorite fictional fantasyland is real, he jumps at the opportunity to have an adventure and throw off the shackles of his own emotions, only to find that perhaps it isn't everything around him that's keeping him miserable.
Review: So I enjoyed The Magicians. I really did. It's just that I had such higher hopes for it. The third book in the series comes out this year, and this one sped to the top of my to-read list based on this recommendation from BuzzFeed: "If Sanderson’s Words of Radiance may be the most anticipated work of “high” fantasy this year, then Lev Grossman’s The Magician's Land may be the most anticipated work of fantasy to be released in the last 25 years period, full stop." So I expected the writing to be on par with Sanderson or perhaps Patrick Rothfuss.
It is not.
Don't get me wrong, I definitely enjoyed the book. The premise is interesting, and I loved the precision and intelligence required of magicians in the Magicians universe. Grossman also worked in some great vocabulary, and not in a forced, I-right-clicked-and-checked-the-thesaurus kind of way. I like learning new words, and the words he chose often turned out to be the most succinct and accurate words for what was being portrayed. That was refreshing.
The pacing was just so terrible. Like, really terrible. A belabored point here and there, and then the reader chances to blink and an entire year has elapsed. I think the author couldn't decide how important the Brakebills time was supposed to be. It formed the foundation for the readers' understanding of how magic works, and it introduced the characters to each other and had them form bonds, but everything was pointing to Fillory from early on, and we don't really start to scratch the surface of that [SPOILER]other than, let's be honest, the obvious fact that the paramedic was the Watcherwoman. We just didn't know what that meant.[/SPOILER] until like 70% of the way through the book. Either more had to happen in Brakebills for it to be worth all that time (maybe even its own book and teasing the Fillory bits for the next), or less had to happen so we could get up and get going with things. Let's be honest, too, all of that studying didn't get them very far when push came to shove. All that studying and they couldn't calculate anything because they didn't know the Circumstances. And then they magically (harhar) figure out their battle magic that they had strewn together pretty much last-minute in their final moment of panic-induced fervor? I don't buy it.
I know the point wasn't necessarily Fillory, it was more what's in Quentin's stupid head (the stupidhead), but still. I didn't feel like the book ever settled into a comfortable rhythm.
Then there's Quentin, the anti-hero. We get it. He's unhappy. We get it, he's drunk. We get it, he doesn't think he deserves all of this. We get it, he doesn't like himself. Can we move on yet? The author went to such lengths to point out Quentin's flaws and disdain for himself that I never really grew to like him, or even to relate to him. That's not a good sign in a protagonist. He waffles so much. [POSSIBLY BIGGER SPOILER SINCE IT'S FROM THE END]And what was up with the super-intense studying that led to deciding to do nothing there at the end of the book? The author realized if he was going to introduce super-Janet, super-Eliot, and super-Julia at the end that Quentin had to be up to par somehow? Weak sauce.[/POSSIBLY BIGGER SPOILER]
So while I enjoyed the book, I was frustrated with it. I hope the sequel is better written or better edited. There was so much that could have gone right, and still can.
3 or 3.5 stars--enjoyable and fun, but flawed.
Review: So I enjoyed The Magicians. I really did. It's just that I had such higher hopes for it. The third book in the series comes out this year, and this one sped to the top of my to-read list based on this recommendation from BuzzFeed: "If Sanderson’s Words of Radiance may be the most anticipated work of “high” fantasy this year, then Lev Grossman’s The Magician's Land may be the most anticipated work of fantasy to be released in the last 25 years period, full stop." So I expected the writing to be on par with Sanderson or perhaps Patrick Rothfuss.
It is not.
Don't get me wrong, I definitely enjoyed the book. The premise is interesting, and I loved the precision and intelligence required of magicians in the Magicians universe. Grossman also worked in some great vocabulary, and not in a forced, I-right-clicked-and-checked-the-thesaurus kind of way. I like learning new words, and the words he chose often turned out to be the most succinct and accurate words for what was being portrayed. That was refreshing.
The pacing was just so terrible. Like, really terrible. A belabored point here and there, and then the reader chances to blink and an entire year has elapsed. I think the author couldn't decide how important the Brakebills time was supposed to be. It formed the foundation for the readers' understanding of how magic works, and it introduced the characters to each other and had them form bonds, but everything was pointing to Fillory from early on, and we don't really start to scratch the surface of that [SPOILER]other than, let's be honest, the obvious fact that the paramedic was the Watcherwoman. We just didn't know what that meant.[/SPOILER] until like 70% of the way through the book. Either more had to happen in Brakebills for it to be worth all that time (maybe even its own book and teasing the Fillory bits for the next), or less had to happen so we could get up and get going with things. Let's be honest, too, all of that studying didn't get them very far when push came to shove. All that studying and they couldn't calculate anything because they didn't know the Circumstances. And then they magically (harhar) figure out their battle magic that they had strewn together pretty much last-minute in their final moment of panic-induced fervor? I don't buy it.
I know the point wasn't necessarily Fillory, it was more what's in Quentin's stupid head (the stupidhead), but still. I didn't feel like the book ever settled into a comfortable rhythm.
Then there's Quentin, the anti-hero. We get it. He's unhappy. We get it, he's drunk. We get it, he doesn't think he deserves all of this. We get it, he doesn't like himself. Can we move on yet? The author went to such lengths to point out Quentin's flaws and disdain for himself that I never really grew to like him, or even to relate to him. That's not a good sign in a protagonist. He waffles so much. [POSSIBLY BIGGER SPOILER SINCE IT'S FROM THE END]And what was up with the super-intense studying that led to deciding to do nothing there at the end of the book? The author realized if he was going to introduce super-Janet, super-Eliot, and super-Julia at the end that Quentin had to be up to par somehow? Weak sauce.[/POSSIBLY BIGGER SPOILER]
So while I enjoyed the book, I was frustrated with it. I hope the sequel is better written or better edited. There was so much that could have gone right, and still can.
3 or 3.5 stars--enjoyable and fun, but flawed.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
lecture: Derrick Johnson
I took time out of my schedule this morning/afternoon to get a free lunch (always welcome, but not the point) and to hear from the keynote speaker of this year's Orrin G. Hatch Distinguished Trial Lawyer Lecture Series, Derrick Johnson. Mr. Johnson is currently the state president for the Mississippi State Conference NAACP, and his address was elecrifying for me. Some things that he emphasized were that with a law degree (and really, with anything in life that affords a step up), we can do good and do well--good by our neighbor, well for our families and country. Having a title is not enough, because we have to do something with it and keep our moral compass, lest people turn against people. There is a lot of screaming in the country, and not much hearing or civility. Civility is something that allowed great political discord to culminate in the Constitution and Bill of Rights--our country's founding fathers did not agree politically, but because of their mutual respect and the ability to work together, we have the framework that holds our country and our legal system together today.
As a leader in the NAACP, Mr. Johnson (understandably/expectedly) took a civil rights slant to his address, admonishing us to protect the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the law when people try to target any group, not just a group to which we belong. He cited Pastor Martin Niemoller's famous Holocaust-era statement in urging us to action:
First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me--
and there was no one left to speak out for me
This strikes home to me. Many people are minorities in one way or another; I myself am a racial minority, being half-Chinese. I am a religious minority, as a member of the LDS church. I am a social minority, as a self-realized nerd. I am a minority in other ways as well. "They" may not be coming for me now, but that is no reason to forestall action. Indeed, it puts me in a position to do more. There are powerful forces in the country that fight against equalities that we have obtained and established already, and there are forces that work to prevent such progress from moving forward. Racism against the Latino population now is frighteningly similar to racism against African Americans during the Civil Rights era. Blacks were originally brought to this country as a form of cheap labor, never meant to be given citizenship rights. They did all the menial tasks no white people wanted to do, and were paid little for their work. They were viewed as less intelligent, less important, and even less human. Isn't that what we are doing to the Latino people today? Mexicans are viewed as cheap laborers, and "their jobs" are to be landscapers, maids, janitors, or construction workers. They are not expected to attend college or do graduate work. Brilliant minds like Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor are viewed as anomalous. Have we really learned so little from the battles our parents fought? Do we really have to go through this again? Are we due for race riots, city burnings, violent demonstrations, lynchings, or hate organizations? Or can we of the rising generation, we open-minded gatekeepers between anarchy and civility (to steal Mr. Johnson's words) capable of pressing forward and embracing change and growth with open arms?
Similar battles for rights and status are being fought on the sexual orientation front, but that's a whole 'nother ball of wax.
As a leader in the NAACP, Mr. Johnson (understandably/expectedly) took a civil rights slant to his address, admonishing us to protect the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the law when people try to target any group, not just a group to which we belong. He cited Pastor Martin Niemoller's famous Holocaust-era statement in urging us to action:
First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me--
and there was no one left to speak out for me
This strikes home to me. Many people are minorities in one way or another; I myself am a racial minority, being half-Chinese. I am a religious minority, as a member of the LDS church. I am a social minority, as a self-realized nerd. I am a minority in other ways as well. "They" may not be coming for me now, but that is no reason to forestall action. Indeed, it puts me in a position to do more. There are powerful forces in the country that fight against equalities that we have obtained and established already, and there are forces that work to prevent such progress from moving forward. Racism against the Latino population now is frighteningly similar to racism against African Americans during the Civil Rights era. Blacks were originally brought to this country as a form of cheap labor, never meant to be given citizenship rights. They did all the menial tasks no white people wanted to do, and were paid little for their work. They were viewed as less intelligent, less important, and even less human. Isn't that what we are doing to the Latino people today? Mexicans are viewed as cheap laborers, and "their jobs" are to be landscapers, maids, janitors, or construction workers. They are not expected to attend college or do graduate work. Brilliant minds like Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor are viewed as anomalous. Have we really learned so little from the battles our parents fought? Do we really have to go through this again? Are we due for race riots, city burnings, violent demonstrations, lynchings, or hate organizations? Or can we of the rising generation, we open-minded gatekeepers between anarchy and civility (to steal Mr. Johnson's words) capable of pressing forward and embracing change and growth with open arms?
Similar battles for rights and status are being fought on the sexual orientation front, but that's a whole 'nother ball of wax.
law school: day 4
I've been through three and a half days of formal instruction at law school now. Not including last week's three day tutorial and orientation, that means I've had roughly 13 hours of class instruction, accompanied by about 270 pages of mandatory reading. Wait...really? 270 pages? 13 hours? It feels as though I've been a student here forever, but it also feels like we haven't done much reading at all. Sure, I've spent a lot of time poring over dry (and sometimes moist) law texts, but we've barely begun to scratch the surface of anything at all.
Law school is way more interesting and exciting than I thought it would be. Having a group of very talented minds to feed off of (don't get any zombie ideas) is invigorating in a way that I haven't really experienced since my English classes with Dr. Steve Walker or Dr. John Talbot. Those two professors, beyond any others I experienced firsthand during my undergraduate studies, knew some secret to unlocking the potential of students (or at least, of me). It seems as though either most law professors at BYU know the same secret, or the students here are somehow already unlocked. Like I said, it's an invigorating experience, and it means that I don't have to try to enjoy my reading and class time, I just do.
Am I particularly interested in Tort law or Contract law? No, not really; but learning about how laws and judicial rulings have shaped the landscape of the law is utterly fascinating to me. The nuance of legal writing is cool. Attacking judicial decisions from every angle to piece together potential arguments requires a depth and breadth of open-mindedness that I hadn't really considered. It's seriously cool, and I love it.
Law school is way more interesting and exciting than I thought it would be. Having a group of very talented minds to feed off of (don't get any zombie ideas) is invigorating in a way that I haven't really experienced since my English classes with Dr. Steve Walker or Dr. John Talbot. Those two professors, beyond any others I experienced firsthand during my undergraduate studies, knew some secret to unlocking the potential of students (or at least, of me). It seems as though either most law professors at BYU know the same secret, or the students here are somehow already unlocked. Like I said, it's an invigorating experience, and it means that I don't have to try to enjoy my reading and class time, I just do.
Am I particularly interested in Tort law or Contract law? No, not really; but learning about how laws and judicial rulings have shaped the landscape of the law is utterly fascinating to me. The nuance of legal writing is cool. Attacking judicial decisions from every angle to piece together potential arguments requires a depth and breadth of open-mindedness that I hadn't really considered. It's seriously cool, and I love it.
Friday, March 12, 2010
american idol: top 16, results
It's 12+ hours later, and I'm still sickened by the results this week. SICKENED. Not just because my two main predictions were completely off (i.e. America got it wrong): Aaron and Paige live to tour America with the Top 12. Hopefully they grow into it, because they're certainly not showing the talent necessary to pull good press. No, not only that, but 2 of my favorite singers who should have been completely safe (i.e. America got it wrong) got ousted. Alex Lambert, my favorite male voice of the season, and Lilly Scott, the indie instrumentalist both got kicked off before they even reached the Top 12. This is probably the second biggest non-finale upset night in the history of Idol (after Chris Daughtry not making the Top 3 in season 5). A Yahoo! blogger says it's because the instrumentalists are splitting the vote amongst themselves, but it's probably lackadaisical voting from complacent fans, combined with people not understanding the styles presented. To add insult to injury, early favorite Todrick was cut, and arguably T12-worthy Katelyn left as well. I was shocked, appalled, upset, and any number of other adjectives about the night. I am just this side of giving up on Idol this season, but loyalty, obsession, and yes, hope keep me watching. The last, best hope for a decent season are Big Mike and Crystal. Some of the others are coming into their own, so we'll see where they go, but with some of the standouts of the season gone and no real polarizing force like last season, this might be a forgettable Idol year.
As for the rest of the night, Scott McIntyre and Matt Giraud were great - pairing the two piano experts was a stroke of genius, and while I am in no way at all interested in buying Scott's CD, I might be convincable if Scott and Matt team up on something. Maybe. And Rolling Stones week shows promise. Less so without Alex and Lilly, but promise nonetheless. Blow me away, Top 12, because right now I'm skeptical.
As for the rest of the night, Scott McIntyre and Matt Giraud were great - pairing the two piano experts was a stroke of genius, and while I am in no way at all interested in buying Scott's CD, I might be convincable if Scott and Matt team up on something. Maybe. And Rolling Stones week shows promise. Less so without Alex and Lilly, but promise nonetheless. Blow me away, Top 12, because right now I'm skeptical.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)