I picked this up last week on the grounds that (1) there was a 241
[1] offer (2) I had an n-hour train journey ahead of me and (3) it had a cool looking cover (
http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/0385605994.02.LZZZZZZZ.jpg).
Comparisons to Harry Potter are inevitable, being about a children's book about a boy learning wizardry, and I don't think unreasonable
[2].
Magic is the summoning of demons of various orders. Magicians run the government, and young wizards are apprenticed to one. Nathaniel's master doesn't take him seriously, and is a bit of a pompous whatsit all in all. When he's being shown off at a dinner party N is humiliated by another magician and plans to revenge himself, teaching himself magic. This culminates when he summons Bartimeous, the first person narrator for half the book, a moderately powerful and quite famous demon to steal the Amulet from said magician. Cue start of book. Good things (as compared to HP):
(a) Magic has a definite downside: summoning demons is dangerous if you mess it up, which explains nicely why it's used in moderation.
(b) N is unusually talented (of course), but is good due to having worked exceptionally hard and planned a lot for a couple of years, not just having Voldemort's power handed to him on a plate.
(c) At the end of the book N's moved on from where he was, and a greater threat than that of this book is obviously approaching, he's not just back where he started but acclaimed a hero.
Other things:
(d) I like N. He's more ruthless, which isn't *good* but makes a nice change. He never knew his parents, but parent-figure is his master's wife, who's kind to him insofar as she can be; that's not more realistic, but easier to identify with when you've *seen* what she's done for him, not just told. He's determined, and plans a lot of stuff instead of just reacting. I like B too, for that matter.
(e) Though as always, it's a bit vague about what magic can do what. And where it isn't it's sometimes too formulaic (eg. 7 planes of existance with such-and-such properties, it feels like a game of 1-up).
(f) It's genuinely humorous in places, with some nice asides in footnotes. But in general the footnotes are way overdone.
Anyone else read it?
[1] l33t humour. 2 for 1.
[2] Eg. "Emberto Eco lite" is a fair description of Dan Brown imho, because they do try to do a bit of enjoyable action and human interaction against a backdrop of historical accuracy albiet with different success
[3] and priorities. Whereas comparing
A Wizard of Earthsea to HP is just wrong, because HP is a school story for good or bad, and WoE just isn't.
[3] OK, I'm a bit biased. I'll admit the Da Vinci Code was enjoyable, but
(a) Dan Brown made a big thing out of his book being based of genuine historical research and then backpedalled to "But it's fiction..." when pointed out that his sources were complete bovine excrement
(b) Foucault's pendulum was about how silly and dangerous invented conspiracies were, and then a textbook example of one crops up in DvC and the books are compared.
(c) For christ's sake, like the twelfth word is a made up title for a job that can't exist, how accurate is this dude again?
