Today I finished Lev Grossman's trilogy of books, The Magicians, for the fourth (?) time. It struck me that while it is completely readable, and emphasizing that this was my fourth-ish time through it and not my last, I find that the author seemed to have certain hang-ups. (SPOILER WARNING: major plot reveal to The Magicians). For example, Julia, in spite of never having received the "sanctioned" training of the Brakebills teachers and learning somewhere in the neighborhood of 250 spells (although that is speculation based on the "leveling" system) becomes a mysteriously powerful magician that the others fear and respect. In the context of the story, it would make more sense for the Brakebills to feel apprehension and concern for Julia- especially when her eyes change color permanently when she performs what should be a rudimentary skill.
Grossman further harps on the idea of the innate power of a woman over that of a man similarly trained when he elevates Alice to unknowable levels of power. (SPOILER WARNING) Despite her having been returned to a mortal state where she wasn't familiar enough with her own body to competently dress, she is described as being more powerful than Quentin, who at a point very early in the trilogy kills a furry animal and returns it to life- reversing entropy- just to see if he could.
Lev Grossman falls into the trap that I am personally scared of falling into with my own books: re-writing or ignoring the past (or what has already been established in continuity) because of having made a character too powerful early on. Now admittedly, no one is sure their book will turn into a series. However, instead of devoting consideration to the ways to solve a power imbalance between a well-developed main character and a recently re-introduced supporting character, the author decides that for no other reason than his personal issues to promote her as a throw-away. It's lazy writing.
Should I desire to give my female characters an advantage over the male characters, I only have to write a two-sentence blip somewhere in the explanation of magic (or if later in the series, the 'deeper magic') that women naturally have a stronger connection to magic. Boom. Problem solved. You can even write your character around the idea that he doesn't believe in that claptrap and that he will prove himself. Or take a note out of J.K. Rowling's book and make squibs or wands of power.
Another point I found exceedingly frustrating was the (SPOILER WARNING) handling of Reynard the Fox. In what is one of the most gruesome scenes in fiction that I have read, the trickster kills all of Julia's friends and rapes her. In the end, when the planned trilogy is concluding, he is killed off-screen by a character who could have had a really cool story arc and was contextually cool. Unfortunately, it seems the action takes place off-screen and we are informed of Reynard's death by an off-handed remark from Julia. Please, if you're going to make us witnesses to the brutal torture and sobbing deaths of innocents, give us the satisfaction of the hunt at least!
I could go on expounding on the apparent flaws of this much-lauded work, perhaps talk about Grossman's sophomoric treatment of theology and his desire to answer the conflict of man vs. God for his readers. But then, as it is often said, "Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones." I don't have a single best-selling novel to my credit. I don't have a novel to my credit. I am not a respected contributor to Time or any of the other many publications Grossman has provided work for.
I do, however, read this trilogy with my own mental exercises going- how would I do this differently? How can I make something this good without crushing it underfoot? and, Why am I so petty when I obviously enjoy reading this series?
Was there anything I left out?
No comments:
Post a Comment