The Magic Thief discussion

It really is a great book. I'm not trying to force it on you guys, but seriously. Does anybody else feel the same?

Why don't more people read this book? My full assessment is here: http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...
but my conclusion was "Is it wonderful, exciting stuff as Diana Wynne Jones declares? Well, I certainly was captivated; but whether I would be in a hurry to re-read it is a different matter. A classic it's not, but as a diverting read the best judges might be my grandchildren."

I loved it. Great series. Needed the other two right away, so that I could finish it.

I think that few people read this book because it looks and sounds kinda like a little kids book.But being totally sincere it was a good book.

Ashley wrote: "It really is a great book. I'm not trying to force it on you guys, but seriously. Does anybody else feel the same?"

I totally agree! The book is so great- well the series actually

i loved it too

It was fairly captivating. Although I know that I've been spoiled by Harry Potter and all that, but I felt uneasy all through reading this novel with the obvious Harry Potter elements (HP: The wand chooses the wizard, MT: The stone chooses the wizard; HP: Veritaserum, MT: phlister; HP: Draco Malfoy, MT: Keeston; HP: Harry Potter, MT: Connwaer; HP: Hermione Granger, MT: Rowan Forestal; HP: Hogwarts, MT: academicos (this one isn't really fair, but the academicos does offer wizard classes); HP: Animagus/spell for turning into one/animal form reflects one's personality, MT: animal form from casting of embero spell/embero spell/animal form reflects one's personality; et cetera).

Bellatrix wrote: "It was fairly captivating. Although I know that I've been spoiled by Harry Potter and all that, but I felt uneasy all through reading this novel with the obvious Harry Potter elements (HP: The wand..."

All of those elements have been around in fantasy and children's fantasy for ages, they weren't invented by JK Rowling for the Harry Potter books. It's just that HP is best known (especially among the younger generation). In fact I thought that Rowling lifted a lot of elements from *other* books (for example those by Diana Wynne Jones, whereas DWJ is much more imaginative - or was, sadly). I still liked HP (at least the first four books), and I liked Magic Thief. I thought it was well written, exciting and fast-paced, a fun read with a likeable protagonist and equally likeable characters, which was all I wanted from that book. I liked that Prineas gave each of the stock characters (female friend, bearded wizard, sort-of-enemy of the same age, inscrutable muscle/fighter man) distinguishing features and character traits. Like Gabrielle, I ordered the next two books immediately.

Verena wrote: "Bellatrix wrote: "It was fairly captivating. Although I know that I've been spoiled by Harry Potter and all that, but I felt uneasy all through reading this novel with the obvious Harry Potter elem..."

Here's the thing. These all came from tales of King Arthur and Merlin. Not Diana Wynne Jones.

Bellatrix wrote: These all came from tales of King Arthur and Merlin. Not Diana Wynne Jones."

Well yes, exactly. So why is it ok for JK Rowling to use those elements, but not for other authors? I think you're giving credit where it isn't due. You say The Magic Thief is too much like Harry Potter, but none of the things you list are original to HP: the wand chooses the wizard like Excalibur chooses its wielder, the idea of a truth serum is probably as old as lies (or alcohol), is being fiddled with in real life and research, and is so common that it has already been parodied in The Hitchhiker's Guide. The Animagus spell/the Patronus reflecting a person's character is basically the idea of spirit animals or totem animals (and has also been used before in fantasy - for example the daemons in Pullman's Northern Lights, which was published two years before HP came out). And if being a female friend of the same age qualifies as being a Hermione clone, no young boy in fantasy literature will be able to have any friends again, ever.

I'd agree with your criticism if the books really were that similar (I'm sure there are quite a few true HP rip-offs out there), but the premise here is quite different, the focus is somewhere else, and while the centre of HP is Hogwarts and school life, the Academicos hardly even features, and descriptions of school life are non-existent. They do contain similar elements, but saying one isn't good because it's too much like the other seems to me like saying muffins aren't good because they're just trying to be cakes.

Annnd I'm a little puzzled that you think that I said those elements came from Diana Wynne Jones: I said HP reminded me of other books, for example those of DWJ, who is rather known for incorporating and playing with elements from mythology and legends (Norse, Greek, Arthurian, Welsh, Celtic, you name it), although the Merlin in her let's-mess-with-Arthur-novel lacks the grey beard and the whole thing has been turned upside down (fun!).

She has also written a novel about a school for wizards/witches and, in another novel, created a young boy character whose family isn't very nice to live with, and who surprisingly turns out to be a wizard and is subsequently being taught magic at a castle. She didn't invent those elements, of course; she did, however, invent a character whose name is Sirius, who has been convicted of murder, and whose punishment consists of being made to live in a dog's body. There are other big and small similarities that made me think JK Rowling must have read DWJ's books (which I read after I started reading HP, by the way). I still liked Harry Potter because I thought it was a good series in its own right (up to a certain point - but I wasn't too happy with the later books for other reasons), and Sirius is my favourite character in HP, with Snape close on his heels.(<- Fierce Snape-supporter here.)

I guess what I'm trying to say with this wall of text is this: I think all three authors draw from the same pool of ideas, and Sarah Prineas has the same right to incorporate those elements in her novels as JK Rowling. Rowling wrote pretty good books, but they are not the most original. Neither is The Magic Thief, by the way, but again it's a good book in its own right. For me that doesn't mean that I have to dislike either of them, or that I can only like one of them. If I started doing that, my reading choice in fantasy would be pretty limited.

I'm sorry about the brief comment, I had to leave.

Well, the Magic Thief is, as I previously stated, a fair book, but I found too many plot holes: Conn sees the Duchess wearing an exquisite necklace with his "locus magicalicus", and he assumes that she won't notice if he pilfers it? The embero spell is allegedly illegal, yet Periwinkle (is that the lady's name?) covertly whispers to Conn that he was right, it is "TARKolil", not "TERKolil". Why would she confide that in him? Also, the MANY biscuit references. I mean, Conn's fervent adoration of biscuits is rather amusing at times (when Captain Kerrn is interrogating him), but gradually becomes quite irritating. Rowan, well, I just was not drawn too much to her character, rather underdeveloped and a bit too perfect (she's the daughter of the Duchess, therefore wealthy, clever, and good-looking, with a good sense of humor). Keeston, his characteristics when first introduced were: Snide, bullying, and sneering, as I have stated, rather a copy of Draco Malfoy, right down to the good looks, blond hair, and superiority complex. Also, it is rather unfair to deem a novel unoriginal. Strictly speaking, not a single idea, book, or invention in history is completely original. All I was implying about the Magic Thief, was that the elements were mostly borrowed, not self-fabricated. J.K.Rowling was quite innovative with several of her ideas, she erected an entire realm in the folds of ordinary London, mostly through her own imagination (much more vivid and creative than my own, I must say). Yes, Rowling did use a few existing ideas to fatten up her story, but it was not cliched or plagiarized in its entirety.

Bellatrix wrote: "I'm sorry about the brief comment, I had to leave.

Well, the Magic Thief is, as I previously stated, a fair book, but I found too many plot holes: Conn sees the Duchess wearing an exquisite neckla..."

Fair enough. I didn't really see the things you mentioned as plot holes - Conn's simple-mindedness about the jewel made me laugh, because the usual reaction would have been "oh no! It's impossible!" and he just went "Right. Gonna get that." I didn't read the thing with Periwinkle as "confiding" in him, it seemed to me she was trying to prevent further damage, as Conn was obviously not willing to let the subject go, and she wanted to keep him from going on about it. Keeston reminded me of Draco, too (I was a bit miffed about the obvious similarities). Rowan is probably a matter of taste, I didn't think her too perfect - she could have been developed a bit more, though.

I don't think it's unfair to say a novel is not very original when it isn't. I just don't think Rowling's books are innovative. When talking to other people about HP, I usually that say that she managed to take a lot of old ideas and create something with a unique magical atmosphere. Her books are fun to read and have this distinct "Harry Potter" feel to them, but her ideas are often borrowed, and her storytelling and structure are pretty simple and straightforward. Same goes for Magic Thief, there's not a lot of innovation, but a distinct atmosphere and simple but tight storytelling with enjoyable characters (for me).

So, their "unoriginality" didn't stop me from enjoying both books. Originality isn't necessarily a sign of quality to me - there are books that are highly original, but a pain to read, or sometimes I acknowledge that I'm reading something very original, but I just don't find it very engaging and don't like it that much. Sometimes the originality just seems like a display of pure ego on the author's part. When I read a book, I mostly want a good, well-told story, not just a proof of an author's genius. Best books are those which show an author's genius through their storytelling, of course.
Oh, and I wasn't really talking about plagiarism or clichés, just about borrowing elements from elsewhere. I don't think it's the same.

Sorry for the late reply, I have the mother of all colds. Brain is still full of snot, I hope what I meant became clear anyway.

Verena wrote: "Bellatrix wrote: "I'm sorry about the brief comment, I had to leave.

Well, the Magic Thief is, as I previously stated, a fair book, but I found too many plot holes: Conn sees the Duchess wearing a..."

To your claim that Harry Potter is "simple", I argue that it is not in the slightest. It is miles beyond miles complex, to the characters' vivid personalities and the intricate maze of plots (a labyrinth has no dead ends, a maze does. I read that in my little brother's Guinness World Records book. :) ).

I read it. I thought I was a awesome book.

I actually didn't really enjoy this book

because you have to read 2/3 of the book to get to the fun part which is not everyone can do. so, its obvious :)