TM: Courage of your convictions when referencing other books? (minor spoilers)

[Joe]

This keeps pulling me out of the story: referencing the character of Hermione Granger by name and joking about magic sports with broomsticks is fine and dandy, but it's not Narnia, it's Fillory.

I keep picturing an FBI tv show where you see a picture of George Bush on the office wall for 17 episodes, but in ep 18 our protagonists actually meet the President, and SHE tells them to have a seat. If George hadn't been hanging around there wouldn't be a problem... but George was there, and there are no takebacks.

It breaks my suspension of disbelief or something. Somehow this is a universe where the Harry Potter and Lord of The Rings books, Communism and South American terrorist groups exist, but pod people carried off CS Lewis and replaced his series with one that appears to have an almost identical background and symbolic intent.

This is all the more disconcerting to me since the title of the book itself is made to be an obvious reference to The Magician(')s (Nephew).

It's such a minor inconsistency, but my brain can't seem to get past it.

Thoughts?

[Napoez3]

I understand why he changes Narnia, this way he can transform the stories of Narnia complement The Magician's world. (I haven't read Narnia, so I might be totally wrong).

[Anne]

I know where you're coming from. I haven't read the Narnia books, so I can't really say anything specific about that, but yeah, I wondered why he doesn't just come out and say it. Even for people like me who are only vaguely familiar with the Narnia books, it is so damn obvious what books he's talking about.

I think there are pros and cons for each option. I can only assume that Narnia has a pretty large fanbase and devoted fans can be a pain to deal with. Really tackling the Narnia lore would have to mean less freedom in how he could shape that particular magic world and having to spent a lot more time in figuring out how to belivably take the Narnia world and bend it to fit to the story.

It can also be a sign of respect, the author saying that yeah, we all know that we're talking about Narnia and yes, I want to point out some of the weak points, but after all I still respect these books for what they are.

Since I haven't read the Narnia books (and maybe even if I had) I don't really care one way or the other. I know what he's talking about and it is inconsistent to make all these other pop culture references but change that particular one, but that probably was on purpose, since the other cases were all just minor references, whereas Fillory/Narnia takes up a lot more space in the books.

[Sean]

I'm sure if the Narnia books were public domain, Grossman would've used them. But they aren't, so there's no way for that to happen without getting the Lewis estate's permission and cutting them in for a piece of the action.

[Kate]

What Sean said. Fair use doesn't allow Grossman to do with Narnia what he does with Fillory.

Its also entirely possible he wanted the artistic flexibility that a world of his own creation gave him.

[Joe]

I agree with all of you - I think my problem is that in my head I can't give BOTH the references to real works (Rowling's books) AND references to fake Lewis books a pass.

You're walking through a mall and are asked to participate in a soda pop taste test. The cups are labelled A, B and C, and you're told you'll be tasting Coca-Cola, Mr Pibb and *Sipsi-cola*. Then you walk into a bookstore and on the "Employees Picks" display you see *Roy Bloombury's Celsius 233* next to a copy of The Horse Whisperer.

My brain doesn't go "Wow, what a strange new world," it just stops and whispers "This is wrong."

I don't think this would have been an issue at all if the references to other things weren't so specifically REAL. Somehow The Magicians isn't Alternate Universe or this universe, and Neverwhere is somewhere else.

[Skaw]

I noticed it more with the Narnia section - especially because I was familiar with the Narnia books. It kept pulling me out as well. If I'd been expecting satire from the start, it wouldn't have bothered me as much, but I went in expecting original fantasy.
What I didn't like the most though was that the Narnia references seemed a bit bitter.

[terpkristin]

Weird, I don't find these references distreacting at all. Quite the opposite, they remind me that this story takes place now, that it could be real conversations between people at some magic school that exists and that we "normal people" never know about.

The Fillory bits seem more tongue-in-cheek homage, not as much parody or satire. The Harry Potter references remind me of references my friends make--sadly I get compared to Hermione and one of my coworkers to Harry fairly regularly. And another acquaintance is a dead ringer for Quentin...or Sheldon from Big Bang.

[Joe]

terpkristin wrote: "Quite the opposite, they remind me that this story takes place now..."

But is it now? Here now is Harry Potter and Narnia. There now is Perry Bottler (or something) and Filloy.

Harry Potter and Fillory is neither here nor there. A truly microscopic distinction, but somehow part of me feels this to be fundamentally wrong.

It shouldn't bother me, but it does.

[Tim]

I get why you feel that way. But a Harry Potter reference is just a throwaway, whereas Fillory forms a major part of the story. What happens to the land, characters, their real life counterparts and the author all have an impact on the storyline.

Trying to fit that around Narnia wouldn't make much sense, and would potentially cause a lot of grief for Lev as well, given how it all goes down...

[Mike]

Would it be saved if the book made it clear that Quentin had read both Narnia and Fillory? The excuse for the Fillory books existing in the book's world and not ours is that Fillory is real for them and not for us. The question really is only why the Chronicles of Narnia doesn't exist.

It could just be more dissonance: how could a book exist with its own imagined parody?

My complaint with the Harry Potter references is that they seem to be just a little bit snarky, implying that this world is so much better drawn that Rowling's, and I can't agree with that.

[P. Aaron]

When I saw the thread title, I thought you were bringing up one of the many other places in which Grossman's novel lacks the courage of its convictions. Ah well, more grist for more threads to come.

As far as this one goes, I felt the same disjunction between the toss-away pop culture refs and the thinly veiled pastiche of Narnia. I was also dismayed by how badly Grossman seemed to misunderstand the nature of the fandom he thinks he is lampooning. On the one hand we are told Quentin is the ultimate Fillory fan, having practically memorized every book after multiple readings...then, mere chapters later, he needs to be reminded of major plot points from those books, as though he had only a passing familiarity with them. Is there anywhere Grossman hit the mark squarely?

[Joe]

I just finished the book, so definite spoiler warning.

I don't think this universe survives if Narnia and Fillory both exist. Narnia is just too heavily influencing Fillory lore. Christian mythos, the witch, the children who go there.

It's clear enough that this is Narnia-ish, rather than Potter-ish or whatever-it-is-you-call-Madeline-L'engle's-series-ish. Prior knowledge of Narnia isn't at all required, but the whole point of of using Narnia seems to be to add that extra layer of interest/anticipation/foreshadowing... to take all you DO know about Narnia - and turn it on its ear.

My complaint with the Potter references is simply that they exist. And yes they're snarky (It took me a while to realize why the dumbledoor, I mean bee, pins were there), but not nearly as snarky as the treatment of the christian mythos, certain characters, and the author of Narnia himself, particularly in the last quarter of the book.

The book wants us to feel the magic is real and exists in our world - it's the setup to make us feel that travel to Nillory is possible, it's true! And to make it clear that putting magic into the hands of young adults is akin to giving a walking pile of hormones grenades - you, dead; you, also dead. And that this series, perhaps even "real" fantasy, is not for kids - let's have kinky animal sexxoring. Oh, and then, because we're not kids but we are, apparently, stupid, let's explain that a vixen is a female fox, let's see some demons inserted into them with no deliberation, and then see those demons wasted uselessly.

There used to be this steak house near my parents home. The steaks were huge and juicy - but tended to be just a bit gristle-y. The clam chowder was tasty, but so thick it stuck to the spoon if you flipped it over. The iced tea was a little bitter. And the wait staff hovered over your shoulder, filling your drinks back up every fourth sip and taking your dishes away before you've even had a chance to put your fork down.

This book is like that restaurant: there's no single thing that is so bad you want to walk away and never come back, but taken as a whole it's trying too hard and all but shouting "Please! I'm Real! You must believe me!"

I'm a real fantasy book about college kids from our world going on a fantasy quest, see? I'm talking about real books and places I know you've heard of to make it feel real. But I'm for adults - I'm going to toss in some cannibalism, lots of booze and drugs and sex and unnecessary nudity just to make you see how real I am. And my protagonist is Shinji Caulfield, I mean Quentin Coldwater, who feels all alone in crowds, just like you!

Whoa. Talk about snarky. And despite this spleen venting, I am going to buy the sequel. But the editor of this book should have been demoted back to the Children's department for letting some of this into print.

[Joe]

P. Aaron wrote: "When I saw the thread title, I thought you were bringing up one of the many other places in which Grossman's novel lacks the courage of its convictions. Ah well, more grist for more threads to co..."

There were a number of points where I thought "These are the smartest of the smart?" I really do think it was a good story, but the editor needed a firmer hand.

[Kate]

Joe wrote: "
There were a number of points where I thought "These are the smartest of the smart?"."

They're just kids who test well.
I'm an alumnus of the Centre for Talented Youth, which is a summer camp for 'gifted' kids. From what I can tell few of us have made much of our lives.

[Stuart]

...but not nearly as snarky as the treatment of the christian mythos, certain characters, and the author of Narnia himself, particularly in the last quarter of the book"

This bugged me too. The little digs at Harry Potter didn't bother me so much, because the author arguably writes a better Hogwarts than J. K. Rowling, but other things, like the handling of the C. S. Lewis stand-in, struck me as just cheap.

[Joe]

Kate wrote: "Joe wrote: "
There were a number of points where I thought "These are the smartest of the smart?"."

They're just kids who test well.
I'm an alumnus of the Centre for Talented Youth, which is a su..."

It is a truth universally acknowledged, that an introvert in possession of good test-taking skills must be in want of a life.

[Leesa]

I'm not as bothered by mixing what actually exists up with things that don't actually exist or are slightly different.

Stephen King broke me of this expectation in the Dark Tower series (as well as how he relates them to many of his other stand-alone books). There's little things he changes to show that whatever world we're on now isn't necessarily the same one as Eddie or Roland or Suzannah started on, but yet... it's the same world in essence, just with a little skip to the left. Hard to explain but it was cool when it fell into place for me.

[terpkristin]

Kate wrote: "They're just kids who test well.
I'm an alumnus of the Centre for Talented Youth, which is a summer camp for 'gifted' kids. From what I can tell few of us have made much of our lives."

This explains a lot. I too am a CTY alumnus. My observation is that until you've met some people actually like Q (which you're more likely to do in groups of that type), you can't believe it's real. My parents, despite knowing someone who is Sheldon from Big Bang Theory to a T, still can't believe that someone can be as bad as he is (note, this person is also a CTY alum).

[P. Aaron]

terpkristin wrote: "My observation is that until you've met some people actually like Q (which you're more likely to do in groups of that type), you can't believe it's real...."

(apparently Goodreads ate my earlier reply to this)

I too am a graduate of (Oregon's) T&G program, was a counselor in their summer school, and teach now at a Tier I Research university. I've observed my wife's research in developmental psychology closely, and monitored our school district's GATE program and after-school classes for advanced students.

In all that, I've never seen anything like Quentin. Sheldon, yes. Lots of Sheldons. The obsessive personality complements a high intellect, resulting in social maladaptive but often overachieving individuals.

By contrast, a bright brain and apathetic, self-destructive, self-pitying whininess results in those students who drop out of universities and blame the system for being mean. We see those students too, usually outside our offices after having failed an exam, absolutely flabbergasted that the brains which allowed them to coast through high school and impress their teachers with a broad vocabulary will not substitute for rigorous work at the university level.

Introversion can coexist with genius. Quentin's degree of egoistic self-indulgence can not. There is no way such a whiner would ever have made it through the supposedly murderously difficult Brakebills curriculum. He would have given up the first time he was ever challenged.

It's simply an inconsistent, badly written character.

[Daniel]

I find it's more like a kind of jargon. When you "work" in a field that is often fictionalized you can't help but include those more famous fictionalizations into the common lexicon.

I work in a security field and even though we are painfully aware of how the majority of 24 security tech is total crap, most of us enjoy the show and it comes up all the time. Also we idolize Chloe and pray for a 24 movie just to get her back into action.

[Joe]

P. Aaron wrote: "a bright brain and apathetic, self-destructive, self-pitying whininess... egoistic self-indulgence..."

Shinji from Evangelion.
Holden Caulfield.
Yes.

[Joe]

Daniel wrote: "I find it's more like a kind of jargon. When you "work" in a field that is often fictionalized you can't help but include those more famous fictionalizations into the common lexicon."

So you're saying that because the novel has a similar environment to Harry Potter (magician's school, magic co-existing with the real world), the references are necessary?

I have to wholly disagree with you there. We're not talking about jokes about waving wands. Harry Potter didn't openly reference what came before it, and offhand I can't remember a reference to Buffy the Vampire Slayer or Tolkien in Dresden. Aside from an author's dedication, there's not a single direct reference to Horatio Hornblower in the Honor Harrington books (which are an even bigger recycling of prior works than The Magicians).

[Daniel]

Joe wrote: "So you're saying that because the novel has a similar environment to Harry Potter (magician's school, magic co-existing with the real world), the references are necessary?" I wouldn't say necessary, but acceptable, and something that I have experienced in a parallel kind of experience.

Joe wrote: "Harry Potter didn't openly reference what came before it"
Well that's a pretty interesting one. Rowling kind of goes out of her way to isolate Harry from the Muggle world in her book. Harry lives his life locked away in the closet under the stairs. Since the story is told from his perspective there's not a lot of opportunity for those kinds of references that would feel genuine. Its similar to what Kirkman did with the Walking Dead. He's removed all pop culture reference to zombies from his universe. He does it so seamlessly that I didn't even notice they were making up their own names for zombies and never use the Z word. I think it was to avoid lengthy conversations about the current understanding of the "rules" of zombies. Instead he could SHOW his own rules through the activities of his characters.

Grossman's approach is different but no less acceptable. He uses the premise of other magical worlds to flavor reaction to his own. He's put his characters into "our world" so its more then a little crazy to think that they wouldn't make those references. At least I found myself thinking that I would in those circumstances.

Joe wrote: "I can't remember a reference to Buffy the Vampire Slayer or Tolkien in Dresden."
Oh God. They are littered through out the entire Dresden series. I think there must be like five in every book. Dresden as a character is very much tied into our modern pop-culture world, and it really brings a lot to my ability to identify with him.

[Joe]

Like I said, I couldn't remember Dresden, but I'm about tw0o books behind and two years since I read my last one. However, Dresden's ability to carry off referencing prior works seamlessly would seem to be a point against The Magicians. It's only Potter that gets called out.

I'm barely three chapters if that into TM2 and there's already more Potter references. It's like this series has an inferiority complex, and constantly needs to put Potter down so they can measure up.

For all the Potterverse's MANY faults (including and especially a Shinji Caulfield protagonist of its own), at least I can credit JKR for not attempting this kind of one-upmanship and instead letting the books fail (or succeed beyond anyone's imagination) on the merits of the story itself.

I've read a lot of books that got touted as the "Next" Harry Potter, but none of them ever attempted to compete so directly on the actual page.

[Christopher]

I will admit I have not started the book yet, but it seems to me that (from various discussions) the people in the book are not just kids going to a school for magic, but kids who are genre fans of SF&F books. (i.e. us) Who get to go to a school for magic.
So it seems like it isn't just plain pop references for additional sales, but placing the characters firmly in the camp of book fans. And, as has been said before, fair use doesn't let you just haul off and use other people's worlds without lots of negotiation. So you can have plain references to things mentioned in passing, and other more detailed references, that have to be altered in name and face.

[Joe]

I don't know that they are necessarily genre fans. The only two books referenced explicitly are Harry Potter and Fillory. We don't know any character's opinion on, The Blue Sword or Little House on the Prairie or the Foundation series, or Encyclopedia Brown for that matter. They are (supposedly) among the top 0.1% or so of students (I remember a particularly biting and somewhat ridiculous remark about having a GPA higher than most people believe the scale goes), but I don't know that !Genius=!DragonRiderTrekkie.

Like many here I was also in "those" classes, and to be honest the smartest kids I knew (the true achievers of the overachievers) seemed to have no Fantasy/SF bent at all. They were all "I wonder if the the animal on McMurphy's boxers was a sperm whale to symbolize his vitality" and I was on the other side of the room reading the first volume of Asimov's autobiography and giggling at his dirty limericks.