J.G. Keely's Reviews > Artemis Fowl

Artemis Fowl by Eoin Colfer
Rate this book
Clear rating

by
84023
's review
Mar 13, 2014

it was ok
bookshelves: uk-and-ireland, novel, fantasy, reviewed
Read from August 29 to September 26, 2011

Colfer has described this series as “Die Hard, with fairies”, which is a reference to an old Hollywood joke. After the phenomenal success of that movie, a lot of writers started pitching their scripts as ‘Die Hard, with [blank]”, such as Speed: “Die Hard on a Bus”, or Air Force One: “Die Hard, on Air Force One”, or, as the joke goes, the unfortunate who wanted to make "Die Hard, in a building".

If you have actually seen Die Hard, you might recall Hans Gruber, the wealthy, cunning, erudite, European villain (played by Alan ‘Not-Just-Snape’ Rickman). But in this book, the European criminal is the main character, suggesting Colfer views the movie in the same light as Barney Stinson of How I Met Your Mother:

”Hans Gruber. Charming international bandit. In the end, he dies hard. He's the title character.”

So, already, we have some interesting choices going on, but many’s the good idea buried by poor execution.

In some ways, telling a good story is like telling an effective lie: you have to know your limits. Like the old writer's adage from Faulker: you've got to kill your darlings. Those overly clever ideas and indulgences have to go, if they don't fit, which they usually don't.

If an author gives in to the urge over-explain or get too fancy, he's going to trip himself up, and Colfer often does. He throws around a lot of terminology, trying to seem knowledgeable to lend credibility to his little fantasy story, but he usually gets it wrong.

He talks about an impact hitting with ‘a ton of G force’, which is nonsense. ‘G Force’ already has a built-in unit of measurement, which is 'Gs', not mass. The process of acceleration can be described in mass, but it would have to be compared to the acceleration of gravity on Earth, or 'Gs', which Colfer fails to do. It would be like describing the speed of a car as ‘fourteen feet'.

He also describes a character as rocketing down a hallway at Mach 1, which is the speed of sound (768 mph). Moving at this speed for a tenth of a second—the amount of time it takes for our brain to react enough to blink—a person would travel 112’, more than the length of the hallway described. Yet he still has his character looking back, adjusting his visor, and fretting about whether he will make it through the door. Not to mention that someone accelerating to Mach 1 within the length of such a hallway would squash them like a bug (at 350 Gs).

He also describes a seasoned bodyguard who refers to the spin kick as pointless and flashy. While jumping spinning kicks may fall into this category, a simple spinning back kick is both an effective and basic tool for a martial artist, and one which is often used in competition in many full-contact disciplines.

Early in the book, he goes to great lengths to describe the computer translation of an unknown language. The entire process is extremely simplified, which is fine, but then, when the translation comes out, not only is it grammatically perfect, it’s all in rhyming couplets!

I always feel frustrated by authors who see the 'Young Adult' label as an excuse to write a thoughtless, cliche book full of simple mistakes. I don't think giving kids badly-researched misinformation is going to turn them into better readers.

And these are all details that could have been easily glossed over. Anyone who knew what the terms meant would have seen they were wrong, and anyone who didn't know them would find them meaningless. One of the benefits of writing Science Fiction or Fantasy is not having to explain yourself, not having to be an expert in everything you talk about. You can just wave your hand and give some mumbo-jumbo and that’s fine, we can suspend our disbelief as long as your story's good.

Which is why, when an author writing a fantastical story tries to inject realism, it's important for them to know what they are talking about, otherwise, they’ll just make themselves look foolish for no good reason. Instead of leaving well enough alone, Colfer tried to come off as well-informed and technical, and failed miserably. A good author doesn’t telegraph their ineptitude, they hide it--but that means a good author must be aware of their limits.

He also goes on a rather condescending diatribe about how Ireland is the most magical place, and Irish mythology is superior to all other myths, because Ireland is the birthplace of all magic. Not only is this a rather insensitive view, it’s also short-sighted, since the book is full of myths which have their basis not in Ireland, but in Scandinavia (dwarves, elves, and trolls). The original people of Ireland were short and dark-haired, with their own complex mythologies. All the redheads of Ireland are descendants of Scandinavian invaders, who brought their myths with them.

But even after this bit of out-of-place nationalism, Colfer never actually ends up using any Irish myth in the story. It’s all very generic stuff. Except for a few place-names, there is nothing uniquely Irish here. His depictions of fairy creatures do not demonstrate any Gaelic origin--indeed, the only thing mythic about them are their names and pointed ears.

I’m not saying Colfer should be tied to old traditions, or that he shouldn’t create his own versions of myth, but it hardly makes sense for him to go on and on about the greatness of Irish magic if he's not going to bother actually using any of it. The statement is also incongruous with the fact that his protagonist is named after a character of Greek myth--and a female one, at that, but my annoyance with the misappropriation of the name ‘Artemis’ is my own onus to bear.

There’s also some eco propaganda, mainly in the form of attacking human beings for ruining everything, which once again, is condescending, over-simplified, and adds nothing to the book.

The characters are unremarkable, just clichés taken from buddy cop movies and played straight: no surprising depth, no twists, no masterful strokes of characterization, just what you’d expect from a techno-spy thriller. Which is somewhat unusual, since this is nominally a fantastical book, but the fantasy elements are rarely touched upon. Mostly, the fairies operate with military commando squads and superior technology. There is nothing particularly magical about them.

When magic is used, it tends to be either to be a simple solution to patch over plot conflicts, or a macguffin to cause conflicts in the first place. As I’ve mentioned before, using a magic as a systematic problem-solver tends to make it feel a lot less magical and a lot more like an author’s crutch. This is especially apparent when the magic is portrayed aside equally fantastical technologies that serve roughly the same purpose.

If an author is going to use a lot of convenient bits of magic and technology so they don't have to think much about the plot, I’m going to expect them to provide some sparkling, unusual characters. If they act stupidly or out-of-character in order to move the plot move along conveniently, then that plot should at least be exciting and unpredictable. Colfer's plot is standard. We do get the villain’s point-of-view more often than in many stories, but that just reminds us how Fowl has little more depth than a James Bond villain.

And if I get convenient plot-solving, cliché characters, and a standard story, I need something else to make it worth reading. I had heard that, in this book, the special element was supposed to be humor, but I did not find this book humorous in any way. I’m not saying that it tried to be funny and failed, I’m not saying it was full of bad jokes which I rolled my eyes at. This book did not even attempt to be funny. There was no clever observation, and nothing surprising. Without the ability to surprise you, no author will be able to deliver any humor.

There is a quite long series of repeated descriptions of a dwarf pooping rock explosively, but this was not presented in a humorous or surprising way, it was rather matter-of-fact, but not wry enough to qualify as ‘deadpan’. The entire book is suffused with a tone of irreverence, but the tone never achieves anything. There are no moments of punctuation where the irreverence boils over, it is just a constant, even presence in every scene, description, and bit of dialogue.

It rather reminds me of a common problem of fan-fic authors: instead of being funny, or exciting, or having interesting characters, or surprising plot-twists, they will instead imply that they are doing those things through character reactions and overstated narration. Colfer constantly implies that eventually, he will just pop out and—Bam! Be funny!—but luckily, it proves to be an empty threat.

The problem is, if you spend all your time promising to be funny or exciting, it just makes it more clear that you aren't actually delivering on that promise. It was easy to see what Colfer wanted this book to be (or more delusionally, thought it was), but it was also to see how often and predictably it failed.

The cover is also ugly and cheap, and I came across some errors in the text, but I won’t blame those on the author.

All in all a straightforward, cliche little story. It's a fast read and not insultingly bad, just poorly-structured, predictable, and forgettable. There are some promising concepts there, but they all end up buried under pointless asides, misused jargon, and the constant promises of an interesting story that never arrives.

* * *

And as I wrote this review, I discovered something disturbing: Colfer has been hired to continue the Hitchhiker’s Guide series. I find this terribly confusing: Douglas Adams was one of the most insightful, clever, unpredictable, philosophically sound, satirically acerbic, and all-around-nice-guy writers that I have ever read. Yet here is Colfer: in no regard funny, with no insights to give, characters unremarkable, dialogue predictable, plot convenient, philosophical outlook insulting, unable to capitalize on an interesting concept, and enough of a self-absorbed jerk that he ruins even simple stories by trying to impress people with references to things he knows nothing about.

Mr. Gaiman,
I know you are a Goodreads author, and one of Adams’ fondest fans, so I must ask you: how could you let this happen to me? If there is anyone who should be continuing Adam’s series, it’s Stewart Lee—and if there were any two people who should continue it, it’s two Stewart Lees.

But you are also a great and talented author, and surprisingly enough, capable of being tremendously funny. No one appreciates more than I do the subtle and shocking wit of not writing a very funny book until six novels in, but I love the swerve of building up a career as a serious-minded, somewhat disturbing author of heavily-allusive horror and then suddenly kicking out something really funny.

But I’m losing my train of thought. Dear Mr. Gaiman, this year for Christmas, please use your magical authorial powers to remove Mr. Colfer from any relation to Mr. Adams’ lovely work. If he wants to write his own dull crime fiction with some fairies thrown in to snag people who are waiting for better fantasy books to be published, that’s his business, but the thought that someone would allow him to besmirch one of the great sci fi series of all time makes me want to snatch him up—along with L. Sprague deCamp and August Derleth—and make them all live in a world like the ones they created: a world which is a pale shadow of what it should be, where every conversation is stilted, every person dull, every jest flaccid—where fire is merely lukewarm, spattered blood pepto-pink, sunsets an overwrought cacophony by Thomas Kincaid, where food is ash in your mouth, where every story starts in a 'white room', and where loving a beautiful woman just feels like clutching your own calloused hand in the dark as you play out the long-faded fantasies of a false-nostalgic youth.

My List of Suggested Fantasy Books
88 likes · flag

Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read Artemis Fowl.
Sign In »

Reading Progress

03/21 marked as: read

Comments (showing 1-50)




dateUp arrow    newest »

Madeeha Great Review! I agree, I can't imagine Eoin Colfer writing hitchhiker's guide. I checked out Stewart Lee, his stand up's hilarious.. I'll have to try some of his books. Any recommendations?


J.G. Keely I know him mostly from his stand up. The reason I suggested him for Hitchhiker's is because his humor, like Adams', is very lively and insightful, while remaining grounded in a sophisticated appreciation of philosophy and psychology. Likewise, despite a very cynical surface, it is rooted in a kind of reluctant hope in man, despite all the damned stupidity.

I haven't read his books, and his only work of fiction, a novel, is no longer in print, and had little success. I've heard it is somewhat hesitant, as one might expect from a first novel, but writing is a skill that can be developed over time. His comedy books have sold rather well, including his latest one, which gives a lot of insight into his life as a comic.


message 48: by Josh (new)

Josh Fantastic review! I shudder to remember that I read this entire series as I was younger. All I remember about this book (or at least the series) was the out-of-place Author Filibusters, such as the eco propaganda like you mentioned, one against video games, the endless praise for Ireland, etc.

Nice use of TVTropes articles! I'm surprised there aren't more reviews that refer to them around here.


J.G. Keely "Nice use of TVTropes articles! I'm surprised there aren't more reviews that refer to them around here."

Yeah, me too. I find them a quick and non-threatening way to get in some literary terms and ideas into otherwise straightforward reviews. Glad you liked the review, and thanks!


message 46: by Nate (new)

Nate Fun review, but why two stars?


J.G. Keely Instead of one? I suppose I don't really state why this book deserves two, except for this hint:

"we have some interesting choices going on, but many’s the good idea buried by poor execution."

But to make it clearer I've added a little conclusion:

"All in all a straightforward, cliche little story. It's a fast read and not insultingly bad, just poorly-structured, predictable, and forgettable. There are some promising concepts there, but they all end up buried under pointless asides and misused jargon."


Michaela lol It amazes me how many people read fantasy, and expect it to be realistic.
Think about the word "fantasy." It's in your mind, it's made up. I love these books because they make me laugh at how ridiculous everything is and because I like the characters. If I was looking for a realistic book, I would definitely avoid these. there not supposed to be realistic. It's just a fun, rather juvenile, fantasy book :)


J.G. Keely Yeah, that's true, if a story is just ridiculous and fantastical, I wouldn't have an issue. The problem here, as I mention in my review, is that Colfer himself keeps trying to be realistic and failing. It's not that he isn't meeting my requirements for what fantasy is supposed to be, but that he isn't meeting his own.

He includes all these details and references which are clearly meant to make his world more realistic and researched, but none of them actually make any sense. If he wanted to make a book that was just fantastical and fun, why keep trying to include 'realistic' details?


Jonathan Keely wrote: "Yeah, that's true, if a story is just ridiculous and fantastical, I wouldn't have an issue. The problem here, as I mention in my review, is that Colfer himself keeps trying to be realistic and fail..."

Nice contention. That said it is aimed at a YA audience who tend not to notice the fact that he tries to be so realistic.

I again note that the current trend of recent fantasy series continued with this one by the way. That is that the first is among the weakest and hence if you're not drawn in you'll not read the stronger books.


J.G. Keely I don't know, the YA excuse gets pretty thin, especially since everyone I know who reads YA is a forty-year-old woman. I agree that, in writing for children, we have to take special consideration for the fact that they don't have a huge pool of experiences to draw from, so it's important not to rely on that, as we would with adults. However, I've never agreed with the notion that 'kids are stupid so it's cool for them to read books that are stupid'. I think developing brains need to be challenged, or we will end up with a surplus of stupidity.

Colfer's weird self-confidence about his own ignorance is not something I think is good to hold up as a model for kids. They probably won't have the knowledge and critical faculties to recognize that he is wrong, but that just means that they will be fooled into just accepting his misinformation. Part of the reason I wouldn't want to go on with the series is that pretty much every pop author, once they become successful, just get more and more self-indulgent, and I found this one self-indulgent enough.


Jonathan Well I must say that I read this series several years ago as a child. It would have been about six years ago I think. From my recollections I found it lacking compared to other series I was reading at the time and it didn't stick in my mind like classics I had read but it wasn't the worst I'd read. And I didn't feel it was at all patronising.

That said I could still see this as the worst of the series even then and knew that he was not particularly a brilliant author. Added to the comments about Die Hard with fairies? Where is he getting that idea?


message 39: by Matt (new)

Matt I am still not sure how I feel about "YA" in general. I have read some books that get shelved in the YA section that I don't think read like YA at all, yet remain appropriate for someone of any age capable of comprehending it. A good example is the Earthsea series. I see this classified as YA a lot, but I really don't think it was intended to be at all. Perhaps that is the key. I know it's a bit of a baseless accusation, as I can't know what's going on in the author's head, but the YA that I seem to have a problem with is YA that feels *intentionally* YA. It's one thing to make sure you have a youngish character going through somewhat of a bildungsroman type story arc, but...hmmm, to be honest I can't quite figure out what I'm trying to put my finger on here.

Anyway, Keely, you really need to get on that Earthsea stuff!


J.G. Keely Yeah, I know I do. I thought I had a copy somewhere around here, but I don't think I've seen it in months. At least I'm tackling Elric, so that's another classic bit of fantasy absorbed.

As for defining YA, it seems to be pretty pointless. There are plenty of books that offer something both to adults and to children, so I don't see a reason to set aside a special category that is 'just for kids'--I feel like if a book is good, it will remain good, even when you get older.

I don't mind an author who makes a specific effort to write in a way that will be interesting and comprehensible to children, but I do resent the idea some people have that YA means you can write something cliche and careless because kids aren't sophisticated enough to sniff it out. That view is insulting both to children, and to the act of authorship.

If it interests you, I talk a bit about the challenge of writing for children in my Alice in Wonderland review.


Sutha This is quite the best review I have read on Goodreads for a while. Thank you Keely for saying everything I thought of this book so eloquently. A complex translation from an unknown language ends up in ryhming english couplets - my eyes rolled!


J.G. Keely Haha, thanks. Glad you liked it. At least we got some unintentional laughs, right?


Sutha Yeah, a few unintentional laughs drowned out by a sea of groans.

Colfer could learn much from Gaiman (since you mention him) on how to write for children. While their styles & tones are poles apart and needn't converge, Gaiman writes with integrity - he doesn't claim to know what he doesn't know and what he creates is internally consistent with his story. And so he can write an epic work like the Sandman equally well as a children's story like Coraline or the Graveyard book. Unfortunately with the money that is made by celebrity authors (and after Fowl & H2G2 Colfer falls into this category) he is unlikely to change his ways. I fear that Dan Brown is more likely to win a Booker than Colfer is to accept his failings and look to improve, given they have brought him so much commercial success. A shame because I think he has some enjoyable ideas if developed better.


J.G. Keely Yeah, it's always unfortunate to see an author who continually makes such simplistic, glaring mistakes, and, having had a modicum of success, shows no inclination to improve.


Lauren I think you pretty much dead-on nailed my thoughts on this book to a point where submitting my own review would be somewhat superfluous.


J.G. Keely Wow, thanks. I'm glad you liked it.


message 31: by babs (new)

babs Wow, this book seems like a very different league than what you usually read. I admire your open mind.


J.G. Keely Heh, does it? I guess I feel like I read a variety of stuff--I definitely think it's important to search out new things to keep me on my toes.


message 29: by babs (new)

babs agreed


Star Inkbright (Ink!) Different people have different sense of humour. Not counting Jeremy Strong books, Artemis Fowl Book Seven was the funniest book i have ever read. Books often get gunnier with re-reads, as well. Speaking of re-reads, you get a bit more out of Artemis Fowl every time you read the series. You can't grasp all of it at omce. The same is true for other books, as well.


J.G. Keely It's true, sense of humor is definitely something that differs between individuals. I know a lot of people who like Terry Pratchett, and reading his books, I can see why they find him funny, even though I don't find him funny. I see a sense of humor there that doesn't really work for me, but I can still see it.

My problem with this book was that I didn't notice any jokes or witticism at all. It wasn't that I saw a joke and thought 'this isn't funny to me', I don't remember there being many instances of humor at all in Colfer's writing. How would you typify his sense of humor? What about his writing do you find funny?

You say you get more from the series the more you read it. In your mind, what else is there to pick up? What sorts of new insights come up in further readings?


Star Inkbright (Ink!) Star wrote: "Different people have different sense of humour. Not counting Jeremy Strong books, Artemis Fowl Book Seven was the funniest book i have ever read. Books often get funnier with re-reads, as well. Sp..."

What did i find funny? Well, I'm not sure I could typify . . .

One of the things was the "I don't like lollipops" bit, followed by Artemis accidently shouting "Lollipops!" at Butler through his walkie-talkie instead of telling him to take cover. I suppose what I found funny was the fact that we'd just heard about lollipops being a word Artemis wouldn't want to use, so when he shouted it at Butler he must have been mortified, which I found funny, although that probably is a bit mean of me . . . Butler was very puzzled as to why Artemis had said lollipops, so I suppose I found it funny that Artemis, who is supposed to be ever so calm and controlled, is losing his cool and blurting out things he doesn't mean.

Yes, I agree that Eoin Colfer included some things that were probably meant to be funny, but weren't. I think that sometimes those parts made the reading go slightly stiff and awkward, instead of flowing. If that makes sense.

Answering to both the rereads question and the funnyness one, when I reread the book/s I find out more about the characters and how funny they can be. Or just more about the characters in general. On the rereads, I already know the characters and their personalities so I can look at what they're doing and what they feel about it, and know whether this seems normal for the character or not, and so on. It's hard to explain.

When I read something for the first time, I tend to focus on the main points of the story, and don't pick up on all of the finer details. When I read a book again, I usually spot things I've missed - like sometimes I think characters are in one place the first time round, but on the reread i realise they're in actually somewhere else.

Sometimes I read a book for the first time and certain parts of it don't make sense to me, but on the rereads I have, like I said before, picked up more finer details so I have a larger knowledge of how things in the story work, and the things that previously didn't make sense, make sense.

About the fairies not being in any way Irish - I know of another Irish children's fantasy author would said, in his books, that Ireland was special and a Cradle of Magic, but his magic in his books also had no relevance to Irish myths . . .


J.G. Keely Ah, sure. Thanks for explaining your thoughts, I think I have a better understanding now.


Star Inkbright (Ink!) You're welcome.


Ryelor BRAVO! Isn't it sad when you enjoy someone's review of a book even more than you enjoyed said book? Spot on with your analysis. LOVED your review. I completely agree that "children's" books, middle-grade and YA should all help children develop higher levels of thinking. Just like eating unhealthy food is bad for the body, reading rubbish, in my opinion, can't be good for the mind. Good writing, even if it is simple, builds the mind. Poor writing, even if shrouded in glitz and glamour, dulls it. Thanks for your review!


Jocelyn I do agree with that Artemis Fowl isn't too great of a book. But they do entertain, at least for me. They're pretty good if someone's bored to death and needs something to read.

And I definitely agree with you on that stupid YA excuse--if anything YA is even more of a reason to write something better.


J.G. Keely Ryelor said: "Good writing, even if it is simple, builds the mind. Poor writing, even if shrouded in glitz and glamour, dulls it. Thanks for your review!"

That about covers it, glad you liked it.

Jocelyn said: "They're pretty good if someone's bored to death"

I guess I feel like I always have twenty amazing books in the pile next to my bed that I could be reading to alleviate my boredom instead of something like this.


Jocelyn Yeah, that's true. There's so much better literature out there.

Keely, have you read Twilight? Because if you consider yourself the Grinch of fantasy...your eyes will burn out of your head from reading Twilight.


J.G. Keely No, I haven't, and yeah, it probably wouldn't be good. I gave pop fiction a try with Harry Potter and did not find it to be worthwhile, so I have no interest in Twilight or Hunger Games or whatever new thing replaces that.


Jocelyn Keely wrote: "No, I haven't, and yeah, it probably wouldn't be good. I gave pop fiction a try with Harry Potter and did not find it to be worthwhile, so I have no interest in Twilight or Hunger Games or whatever..."

Good for you, because both the Hunger Games and Twilight are pretty bad YA fiction.


message 17: by Clorush (new)

Clorush "Keely wrote: "In some ways, telling a good story is like telling an effective lie: you have to know your limits. Like the old writer's adage from Faulker: you've got to kill your darlings. Those overly clever ideas and indulgences have to go, if they don't fit, which they usually don't."

I really couldn't agree more with the adage, and as an aspiring fiction writer I'll try not to forget it.

And thanks for the review Keely. I think you've just inspired me to be a reviewer. Maybe one day when my bookshelves are as large as yours.


Scribble Orca This one just got a your nose, a tad, hmm?


J.G. Keely Clorush said: "I think you've just inspired me to be a reviewer."

Hey, that's cool. I find writing reviews can be very helpful in understanding how to write fiction (and how not to write it).

Scribble said: "This one just got a your nose, a tad, hmm?"

Eh, mainly the inexplicable fact that someone read this and thought it seemed anything like Adams' work.


Antof9 I just read the part about the Mach 1 hallway-hurtling and was so confused! I'll keep reading because I don't hate it yet, but glad to know I'm not the only one confused by the references thrown in for reference's sake, and not accuracy's.


J.G. Keely Yeah, I didn't hate it, but there wasn't anything about it that made me desirous to try another book of his.


message 12: by Azn (new) - added it

Azn Goddamn that was a well-written review. I didn't like your review of Game of Thrones that much but this one convinced me not to read the book. Thanks, bro.


J.G. Keely No problem, glad you liked it.


message 10: by Danielle (new)

Danielle Paige You sir, are an idiot. Artemis Fowl is plenty funny and unpredictable if you bother to read the rest of the series. You can't judge an author by one little book he writes. Yes, the first one was a bit boring. SO FREAKING WHAT? The rest of the series is witty, insightful, funny, and, wait for it... A KID'S BOOK SERIES!!! Next time you want a book to reach your adult sophisticated standards, pick an adult book to read alright? You are an adult obviously, but when you wrote this report, did you ever pause and think, 'Wait. Maybe he isn't writing it so sophisticated because it is aimed for a 10-12 year old audience!' Ever thought of that? Seriously though, stop reviewing kid's books.


J.G. Keely "You can't judge an author by one little book he writes."

I can certainly judge this book, having read it, which is why I reviewed it. Even if the author did improve later, he still choose to write and publish this book, so it certainly comments on his skills and abilities when he wrote it.

"You are an adult obviously, but when you wrote this report, did you ever pause and think, 'Wait. Maybe he isn't writing it so sophisticated because it is aimed for a 10-12 year old audience!'"

Just because a book is written for a younger audience doesn't mean it has to be stupid. I don't believe that we need to 'write down' to younger people as if they're too dumb to understand the world. I think there are a lot of great books out there for younger people to read and enjoy, so I'm not going to judge a book differently based on its intended audience. Young people are not idiots, they deserve books just as good as anyone else's.


Maddie Pinee I admire your perseverance to search out every single error that contributed to this book's "downfall".... or perhaps you were already aware of each one of them before you came on good reads? Also, I agree with the above comment that we shouldn't turn this book into a self-fulfilling prophecy by dumbing down a book for kids. However, reality generally means that a majority of kids will not be as interested had the book been packed with facts in exchange for scenes that don't slow down the action of the the story. This is a fantasy action novel in my opinion, and this novel may not have been as well acclaimed and loved by children if it had all the facts dumped in like in Moby Dick.


Jagruti Keely: Very insightful review. I agree with a lot of the points you raised, but I think you are looking at it from the point of view of an adult who likes coherent plot lines and logical resolutions. Kids are usually more into action and magic and explosions and all those things, which would explain why stories like Cinderella and Snow White have stood the test of time. (Speaking of which, I should love to see you review some of the fairy tales, I have a feeling you would be tremendously funny.)

I was also disappointed with Mr. Colfer's appointment to continue the Hitchhiker's series, and even more so when I finally got around to reading it. I am not acquainted with Stewart Lee, however, and I shall go and rectify that merely because you consider him a worthy successor to Douglas Adams. :)


message 6: by Kanishk (new)

Kanishk Kumar You did a good job highlighting scientific inaccuracies. I'd just like to add one - One cannot become invisible by simply vibrating on the mean position, to achieve even a haze, you have to vibrate to double your body width - and we know fairies don't do that because Butler couldn't have fought them with anti-shield goggles.


Frank Great Review, it's hitting a lot of what I've seen already (30 percent of the way through the book). But Colfer is going to continue Hitchiker's guide? Not like I'd accept anyone actually doing it, but really? The guy who wrote THIS book wrote the last hitchiker's book? Oh dear.


Frank Kanishk, you also forgot that he's able to see them vibrate like that on a CAMERA. If the vibrations are too fast for a camera to see, they're too fast for a camera to see, you can't just apply a filter and look at the video from the camera and somehow see them, if you could, every frame would show them in some form.


message 3: by Ira (new)

Ira While I respect your point of view, I have to say that you are wrong in one point you make. That is about the name of the main character. The name Artemis in Greece can be male or female, it depends on where you put the emphasis when you say the name. If you say 'artemis then it is the greek goodess and female. If you say art'emis then it is a male name. That is why the name never bothered me. Because it does actually exist, even though I don't know if Colfer got his idea from there.


message 2: by Ira (new)

Ira While I respect your point of view, I have to say that you are wrong in one point you make. That is about the name of the main character. The name Artemis in Greece can be male or female, it depends on where you put the emphasis when you say the name. If you say 'artemis then it is the greek goodess and female. If you say art'emis then it is a male name. That is why the name never bothered me. Because it does actually exist, even though I don't know if Colfer got his idea from there.


message 1: by Ira (new)

Ira While I respect your point of view, I have to say that you are wrong in one point you make. That is about the name of the main character. The name Artemis in Greece can be male or female, it depends on where you put the emphasis when you say the name. If you say 'artemis then it is the greek goodess and female. If you say art'emis then it is a male name. That is why the name never bothered me. Because it does actually exist, even though I don't know if Colfer got his idea from there.


back to top