Warning: All The Spoilers, much rant.

Far back in the mists of time – which is to say, in April 2011 – I reviewed Zack Snyder’s Sucker Punch, a deeply problematic film which, despite its apparently noble intentions, succeeded only in replicating and reinforcing the selfsame sexist, exploitative tropes it ostensibly meant to subvert. Similarly, in August last year, I weighed in on the controversy surrounding Victoria Foyt’s Save the Pearls: Revealing Eden, a self-published YA novel whose deeply problematic use of racist language and imagery overwhelmingly outweighed its stated goal of “turn[ing] racism on its head”, a dissonance which was further compounded by Foyt’s equally problematic responses to her critics. And now, by way of kicking off 2013, I’m going to review Lev Grossman’s The Magicians,  a novel which, while certainly not as egregious in its awfulness as either Foyt or Snyder’s work, fails in a conspicuously similar manner, viz: by unconsciously perpetuating exactly the sort of objectionable bullshit it was (one assumes) intended to critique.

In a nutshell, then: The Magicians is the story of Quentin Coldwater, a privileged, clever yet disaffected youth with a deep-seated sense of entitlement and a private longing for the magical, fictional world of Fillory, a wholly unsubtle Narnia substitute. Aged seventeen, Quentin is diverted away from Princeton and selected instead to learn real magic at the exclusive Brakebills College, aka Hogwarts For Assholes, where he spends five years being oblivious and dissolute while becoming progressively more awful, and very occasionally encountering things that are relevant at the finale. After graduating, he and his equally unlikable friends live a pointless, overindulgent life in Manhattan  until a former classmate shows up with the news that Fillory is real; on travelling there, the young magicians  encounter a terrible enemy whose defeat is only achieved at the expense of one of their lives. Horribly wounded, Quentin is left to recuperate in Fillory while his remaining friends bugger off home; eventually, he returns to Earth, abandons magic and gets a desk job – right up until his friends return and convince him to come back to Fillory as a co-regent king, at which point he flies out a window to join them. The End.

Despite being well-written, from a purely technical standpoint, The Magicians is a structural mess, being simultaneously too rushed and too flabby: there’s simply too much happening that doesn’t actually matter, like welters games and the South Pole trip, and while Grossman does his best to skip us swiftly through Quentin’s five years at Brakebills, the fact is that, in a novel which boasts no meaningful secondary plots, it’s not until page 348 of 488 that the characters actually enter Fillory – meaning, by implication if not intent, that the first three quarters of the novel function as little more than an increasingly tedious prologue. As a narrative gambit, this could still have worked if Grossman had used those early sections to focus on solid characterisation, or if anything Quentin learned at school proved relevant in the final, climactic battle. Instead, the secondary characters – yearmate and eventual girlfriend Alice, punk rival Penny, and senior libertines Eliot, Janet and Josh – are barely fleshed out beyond a bare minimum of backstory and a few offhand eccentricities, while in the end, it’s Penny who finds the way into Fillory and Alice who dies to defeat the villain. Quentin, by contrast, winds up a passenger in his own story, contributing nothing meaningful (or at least, nothing useful) despite his apparent specialness and remaining, from go to woe, a thoroughly passive character. Which begs the question: why did Grossman feel the need to show Quentin’s entire tertiary education before letting him go to Fillory? Why, when so little time is spent on characterisation or building a sensible magic system – the latter’s fundamentals are purposefully vague and glossed-over, so that despite the amount of time Quentin spends in classrooms, it’s never really apparent what he’s actually learning, while two new characters, Anais and Richard, are introduced well after the halfway mark for no readily apparent reason – was it necessary to prolong the trip between worlds?

The answer, I suspect, has to do with the story’s moral; or at least, with what one might reasonably construe to be the moral, or the point, or whatever you’d like to call it. As a character, Quentin’s developmental trajectory is that of a disaffected, selfish, horny teenager transitioning into a disaffected, selfish, sexist adult, and while the ending eventually reveals these characteristics to have been deliberate authorial choices, early on, it’s harder to tell whether Grossman realises just how unsympathetic his protagonist really is. Once Quentin graduates from Brakebills, in fact, it’s like a switch has been flipped: whereas before it was possible to attribute most of his failings to youthful, privileged obliviousness, once freed from the confines of college, his bad behaviour escalates dramatically, leaving little doubt that we, the audience, are meant to identify it as such. For all his dissatisfaction with various aspects of his life,  it never occurs to Quentin that he might be the cause of it; always, he assumes his own unhappiness to be either the result of some fundamental flaw in how the world works, or else the fault of some specific person. This lack of self-awareness is key to his passivity: instead of trying to change things, he waits for the problem, whatever it is, to fix itself, and then feels misunderstood and thwarted when his misery remains. Only his affection for Fillory remains constant – Fillory, the perfect other world into which, despite all the magic of his everyday existence, he still secretly yearns to escape. But even once he arrives there, Quentin is still unhappy, prompting a furious Alice to utter what is arguably the novel’s Big Reveal:

“‘I will stop being a mouse, Quentin. I will take some chances. If you will, for just one second, look at your life and see how perfect it is. Stop looking for the next secret door that is going to lead you to your real life. Stop waiting. This is it: there’s nothing else. It’s here, and you’d better decide to enjoy it or you’re going to be miserable wherever you go, for the rest of your life, forever.’

‘You can’t just decide to be happy.’

‘No, you can’t. But you can sure as hell decide to be miserable. Is that what you want? Do you want to be the asshole who went to Fillory and was miserable there? Even in Fillory? Because that’s who you are right now.'”

Quentin struggles to understand this point, but later, once he’s returned to Earth after Alice’s death, the lesson hits home:

“In different ways they had both discovered the same truth: that to live out childhood fantasies as a grown-up was to court and wed and bed disaster.”

And thus, the moral: that wherever you go, you take yourself with you, such that trying to cure your unhappiness by forever yearning after idealised childhood fantasies is doomed to terrible failure. Having vanished into Fillory, the novel’s villain, Martin Chatwin – formerly thought by Quentin to be a fictional character – became the only one of his siblings to stay there forever, an escape which Quentin had always privately envied. But Martin has become a monster, making terrible pacts for power and peace, and all for want of the necessary strength to live in the real world. For an SFF novel, then, this seems to be a particularly cutting message: by first making Quentin an identifiable character for exactly the sort of passive loner stereotypically associated with fandom, and then morphing him into a bitter, unhappy, sexist whose problems stem almost entirely from his lack of self-awareness and his uncritical love of Fillory/Narnia, Grossman is arguably passing negative judgement on a large portion of his own readership, rebuking their drive for escapism as little more than a sign of selfish immaturity. Or at least, if that’s not the intended moral – which is still possible, given that the story ends with Quentin’s return to Fillory – then it certainly ups the ante for the rest of the novel’s problems.

Because however actively or subtly Grossman is trying to critique the sense of entitlement felt by a particular subset of sexist male fans, The Magicians is still saturated with such a high level of background offensiveness that, more often than not, it serves to reinforce exactly the sort of problematic behaviour that it ostensibly means to debunk. Most obviously – and most prominently, as a female reader – is the overwhelmingly negative treatment of women. As I had early cause to observe, most every female character Quentin encounters is unnecessarily sexualised, and often in such a way as to diminish their competence. This isn’t just a consequence of being in Quentin’s point of view; as an attitude, it seeps into the background narration, such that his observations become indistinguishable from Grossman’s. At the most basic level, this resolves itself into a fixation with breasts in particular; we hear about them with just enough regularity to become complacently problematic, so that by the end of the novel, we’ve dealt with the following descriptions:

“…the radiant upper slopes of her achingly full and gropable breasts…” – page 77.

“… he was suddenly aware of her full breasts inside her thin, high-necked blouse.” – page 117.

“At one point one of her slight breasts wandered out of her misbuttoned cardigan that she wore with nothing under it; she tucked it back in without the slightest trace of embarrassment.” – page 252.

“She was whole, thank God, and naked – her body was slim, her breasts slight and girlish. Her nails and nipples were pale purple.” – page 355.

“As he watched she bent over the map, deliberately smooshing her tit into Dint’s shoulder as she did so.” – 405

“The back of her blouse gaped palely open… he could see her black bra strap, which had somehow survived the operation.” – page 409.

“She wore a tight black leather bustier that she was in imminent danger of falling out of.” – page 486.

And that, of course, is just the breasts; there’s plenty of sexualised but largely unnecessary references to other female body parts, too. Add it all together – and compare the prevalence of same to the absence of comparable male descriptions, with the possible exception of a giant’s penis – and you have a story that’s irrevocably written in the male gaze, not just as a consequence of having a straight male protagonist, but because this is what Grossman has chosen to highlight. As I’ve said before, there’s nothing inherently wrong with the male gaze as a literary device, but in a book which is attempting, at least in part, to critique sexism, deploying a variant of the male gaze that focuses wholly on female bodies in a context utterly disconnected from their value as people – and which is never actively acknowledged, let alone flagged as negative – cannot help but be problematic. And then there’s the use of pejorative, sexualised language and gendered insults to contend with, as per the following examples:

“Merits are for pussies,’ he said.” – page 52.

“…Janet got shriller and pushier about the game, and her shrill pushiness became less endearing. She couldn’t help it, it was just her neurotic need to control everything…” – page 152.

“‘Emma wasn’t a cow,’ Josh said. ‘Or if she was, she was a hot cow. She’s like one of those wagyu cows.'” – page 228.

“‘That’s what she wants everybody to think! So you won’t realise what a howling cunt she is!'” – page 237.

“‘If that bothers you, Georgia,’ Fogg said curtly, ‘then you should have gone to beauty school.'” – page 269.

“‘Quentin,’ she said, ‘you have always been the most unbelievable pussy.'” – page 306.

“‘Don’t you fucking speak to me!’ She slapped wildly at his head and shoulders with both hands so that he ducked and put up his arms. ‘Don’t you even dare talk to me, you whore! You fucking whore!'” – page 309.

“She was right, a thousand times right, but if he could just make her see what he saw – if she could only put things in proper perspective. Fucking women.”  – page 311.

“‘Oh, come on Quentina. We’re not looking for trouble.'” – page 333.

“Asshole. That slutty nymph was right. This is not your war.” – page 409.

“‘That bloody cunt of a Watcherwoman is still at it, with her damned clock-trees.'” – page 434.

Subtler and more pervasive than all of this, though, is the extent to which Quentin passes negative judgement on the sexuality of the women around him – which is to say, more or less constantly. That might be written off as part of his obnoxious personality, but as with so much else, Grossman seems unable to keep from speculating beyond those bounds. Janet’s sexual choices are frequently scrutinised; within moments of meeting a female Fillory resident, Quentin judges her to be a lesbian on no greater basis than her hair and clothes; it’s even suggested that Anais has somehow managed to sleep with a male stranger while the group is busy exploring a tomb. And then there’s Quentin’s habit of blaming the women around him for his own choices. Unhappy with Alice, he blames her for his bad decisions; having cheated on Alice with Janet, he blames Janet for tempting him; for all the choices he makes in Fillory, he blames Jane for letting him go there. Surely, this just another consequence of his flawed personality; and yet he never seems to blame any men for the things that go wrong in his life. For Quentin, women are always the ones at fault, and it’s this fact, rather than his penchant for blaming others, which reads as unconscious bias.

The sex, too, is deeply problematic, not least because Quentin’s first time with Alice takes place when both of them have, along with all their classmates, been transformed into arctic foxes – something their (male) instructor has cooked up as a way for the group of horny teenagers to let off steam while studying at the bleak South Pole. But what’s never discussed is the issue of consent this raises; or rather, the lack thereof. “He caught a glimpse of Alice’s dark fox eyes rolling with terror and then half shutting with pleasure,” we’re told of their union on page 191 – and somehow, miraculously, despite having betrayed no obvious interest in Quentin before – nor he in her, apart from the single requisite instance of noticing her breasts – they end up in a relationship not long afterwards. There’s never any talk about whether this encounter constitutes rape, or whether it did for any of the other students while turned into foxes; instead, and somewhat disturbingly, the incident leads Quentin to nickname Alice ‘Vix’, as in Vixen, though the sobriquet is only ever used once. Similarly, when we’re told on pages 193-194 that this same isolated class has started to indulge in orgies – “… they would gather in apparently arbitrary combinations, in an empty classroom or in somebody’s bedroom, in semi-anonymous chains, their white uniforms half or all the way off, their eyes glassy and bored as they pulled and stroked and pumped…”  – it feels like nothing so much as an unnecessary male fantasy, not least because, under the circumstances, nobody can possibly have any access to birth control. Doubtless, Grossman intended it as a throwaway line, but all it does it contribute to the subconscious sexism of the story: without wanting to divide his readership too sharply along gender lines, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to imagine that more female readers than male were perturbed by the potential for unwanted pregnancies in this section.

Against this worrying backdrop, Quentin’s abysmal treatment of Alice is almost par for the course: clearly, his decision to sleep with Janet is a bad one preceded by plenty of warning signs, not least of all his own admission engaging in “manic flirting and pawing” (page 279) while out at parties. That he then blames Janet for his bad choices – “She’d sabotaged him and Alice, and she was loving it” (page 327) – is one thing, as is his earlier complaint that “if Alice had any blood in her veins she would have joined them” (page 291). This is clearly vile behaviour, and not even Quentin’s obliviousness to that fact is sufficient to conceal it from the reader. But once again, their relationship issues are grounded in a more subtle form of sexism, such as the fact that, even though Alice’s plans to study in Glasgow are effectively vetoed for Quentin’s sake – “the idea of being separated didn’t particularly appeal to either of them, nor did the idea of Quentin’s aimlessly tagging along with her to Scotland” (page 359) – there’s no awareness of the fact that she, in turn, has “put off the kind of civil-service appointment or research apprenticeship that usually ensnared  serious-minded Brakebills students so she could stay in New York with Quentin” (page 77): her sacrifice is simply taken for granted and never mentioned again, even when Quentin’s behaviour worsens.

Alice’s whole character, in fact, is a major strike against The Magicians: not just because she ends up stuffed in the fridge, which is a gross offence in and of itself, but because her relationship with Quentin is utterly unfathomable. In a series of implausible leaps, he goes from noticing her breasts, to thinking she smells “unbe-fucking-lievable” as a fox (and then mounting her), to wondering if he might love her, to their suddenly being together, after which he proceeds to treat her, on balance, very poorly indeed. Alice, though, is the stronger magician by far; what she sees in Quentin is a mystery, and even after he’s cheated on her, she ends up apologising to him for daring to sleep with Penny by way of revenge, saying, “I don’t think I understood how much it would hurt you” (page 404). And Quentin’s response? “‘Maybe you’ll do something one of these days instead of being such a pathetic little mouse all the time'” (page 405). Never mind that, of the two of them, Alice is the proactive one; she agrees with him about her mousiness, because that’s her role in the story: Grossman has written her in as Quentin’s love interest, and so she puts up with his crap above and beyond what her personality indicates she otherwise would or should. Quentin might not be a hero, but he’s still the protagonist, and in such a profoundly male gaze narrative, that means he gets the girl he wants for no better reason than that he wants her; that she dies saving his life from an enemy he summoned through sheer idiocy is hardly fair compensation.

There’s more I’d planned to say about the problems in The Magicians – about Grossman’s uncritical use of the words gimp, cripple and retarded; about the offhand and inappropriate treatment of Eliot’s sexual preferences;  about the weird, peculiar arrogance of alluding to Narnia and Hogwarts so crassly and overtly, as though the best way to deconstruct the complex issues surrounding either world is simply to populate them with scheming, selfish assholes; about every other instance of objectionable sexism that leapt out at me while reading, and which I dully noted down; about the incredibly lazy worldbuilding, handwaved early on in the piece as ultimately unimportant, yet still full of holes and fridge logic – but then I’d be here forever.  Clearly, I didn’t enjoy the book: though pacey and intriguing at the outset, the further I progressed with the narrative, the more I became fractious, bored and angry at the whole thing, as though I were being forced along on a lengthy, pointless car trip with unpleasant company on a hot day. I finished largely out of stubbornness, and to an extent, I’m glad I did, if only for the catharsis: various plot points left open in the early stages were closed out at the end, and at least now I can say I’ve read it. But even though Grossman’s actual writing style is clear and concise, his storytelling is not. The Magicians could easily have been a good 200 pages shorter without losing anything important, while the core conceit – that of sending a grown, troubled Fillory/Narnia fan into their beloved childhood world in order to force a confrontation with their own inadequacies – might well have made better fodder for a short story or novella than a novel.

And underpinning every other objection was the sexism; the pervasive sense that not only was Quentin mistreating, demeaning or otherwise objectifying every woman he encountered, but that Grossman’s own subconscious bias and investment in the male gaze was helping to normalise this bad behaviour rather than, as was hopefully his intention, critique it. Even once the full extent of Quentin’s flaws were revealed, I couldn’t help feeling that story was more concerned with perpetuating sexism at a background level than deconstructing it on a conscious one, and when combined with the other structural and narrative issues pervading the text, the overall reading experience was one of exasperation. As much praise as it’s received, therefore, and as much as I embarked on reading it in a spirit of hopeful optimism, The Magicians was a profound disappointment; I won’t be reading the sequel, and whatever else Grossman writes afterwards, I’ll be predisposed to view it with trepidation.



  1. NicoleL says:

    I now understand what people meant when they said this book was “Happy Potter for grown-ups”. They meant men. Or the social construct of Sexist Man. No woman or girl cooties.

  2. Tasha Turner says:

    Umm, wow. Women not welcome… What concerns me is there seems to be a market for this. At least I know where not to spend my $$s.

    • fozmeadows says:

      Even with all the quotes included above, I was restricting myself. Otherwise, the entire post would’ve devolved into me just quoting the book and making growly sounds.

      • Liz Bourke says:

        It seems that growly sounds are eminently justified. I’m really glad the descriptions I’ve read of this book never tempted me to pick it up, and your review clinches the matter.

  3. linda says:

    Great review — you touched on a lot of the things that made me name The Magicians my Most Miserable Read of 2012 in my end-of-the-year book roundup.

  4. Thoraiya says:

    I couldn’t get far into the book, for all the reasons you mentioned – I’m sorry, are you calling adult Harry Potter fans losers after riding the Harry-Potter-for-adults tag line all the way to bestsellerdom? – but I did wonder if I’d given up too soon, so thanks for the review.

  5. tielserrath says:


    Only one question – why did no other reviewer see any of this?

  6. Eedamme says:

    I had the exact same reaction when I read The Magicians. I had to stop halfway through and seek out reviews and thoughts from friends because I thought I must be missing something. The story seemed to have such potential, to be a satire or a critique but at the same time a nostalgic homage to boarding school stories and otherworld fantasies, but there were elements that just didn’t fit with that interpretation – most noticeably, Quentin’s and the text’s attitudes towards women.

    You wrote that this perception ‘isn’t just a consequence of being in Quentin’s point of view; as an attitude, it seeps into the background narration, such that his observations become indistinguishable from Grossman’s’ and this was a big problem for me. Quentin’s arrogance, passivity, self-pity, and misogyny intruded on the story to such an extent that I couldn’t enjoy the story, and the text itself seemed to reinforce his viewpoint by never highlighting or questioning his preoccupation with breasts, his surprise at women in professional roles, or the constant, disrespectful sexualisation of women (which after a certain point I could no longer write off as the author’s portrayal of an immature, horny adolescent).

    I could predict which female characters were slated to die or have a comeuppance based on their level of attractiveness (it’s been a while since I read it, but the girl who is killed in the classroom is described as loud and as having broad shoulders and dishwater hair, and other not traditionally feminine therefore threatening and unattractive characteristics. The female mercenary in Fillory is derisively summed up and dismissed as a lesbian, therefore of no further interest to Quentin except that she should be punished by death for not being sexually interested in him. And then there is Alice, who starts out sullen and threateningly intelligent/ talented, then is squashed into the role of Quentin’s love interest once he notices her breasts.).

    I wanted to read these things as intentional, as a critique. The story seemed otherwise self-aware. but it still wasn’t clear to me by the end what Grossman’s point was. You’ve said that ‘the ending eventually reveals these characteristics to have been deliberate authorial choices’, and to a certain extent it does, but I was still left feeling uncertain whether Grossman was critiquing say, the prevalence of such thinking in the kinds of works he is imitating/ discussing, or in the readers of such works, or if it was his own biases surfacing in the text.

    I think you’re right when you say that ‘Grossman’s own subconscious bias and investment in the male gaze was helping to normalise this bad behaviour rather than, as was hopefully his intention, critique it.’ It’s that ‘hopefully’ that gets to me. He can have tried and failed to write a critique of this sort of behaviour and I could respect the effort and find the shortcomings interesting indicators of Grossman’s own inability to see past his prejudices and the biases of the genre. But maybe he wasn’t actually aware of this element in his text at all? And more disturbingly, how many people who read The Magicians didn’t find this problematic either?

  7. […] listed this book, and it’s sequel The Magician King, among my favorite books). So I read Foz’s review and was […]

  8. jillheather says:

    I admit that I would be fascinated to read your review of book 2 — where, surprisingly, Julia returns and we get an entirely new vista of inappropriate — but I cannot in good conscience recommend it.

  9. Evan says:

    You are probably making a good choice in not reading the second book. The (unconscious?) sexism doesn’t get any better. In fact, a major plot point revolves around a female character getting raped, and then “ascending” for lack of a better term, due to the rape itself. Not due to her skills, or any choices that she’d actively made. Just because a god decided she’d be a good receptacle.

  10. THANK YOU! I keep telling people how much this book bothers me, and why, and getting blank stares. It really drives me crazy, because there are some wonderful passages–the goose-flight south, the run across the Antarctic, that part where the kids go underground and get drunk and summon demons or whatever–but every time it starts to pick up, and develop a plot, it just seems to forget where it’s going. And… poor Alice. She deserved SO much better. As for Janet, I strongly suspect she resembles some woman that the author had a bad experience with in the past. She’s punished just a little too thoroughly, you know?

    I don’t plan to read the second book, either–but I’m glad there are people who agree with me about the first one.

  11. Ani J. Sharmin says:

    Thanks very much for the review! I actually read Lev Grossman’s “The Magicians” recently as well. I really enjoyed some parts of the book (certain well-written sections, the message of not escaping into a fantasy and forgetting to live your life, the fact that there were lots of moments that were surprising and unpredictable to me) there were some things that just bothered me about the story. The sexism was definitely part of it. The way the relationship between Quentin and Alice started, while they were transformed into foxes, troubled me a lot.

    I actually found that I could relate to Quentin in some ways, especially his desire to escape into a fantasy world when things are not going well in this world. That passage in which they are in Fillory, and he realizes that it really is Fillory because of the clock in the tress, and ends up crying … that was just so touching to me, because I think I can understand how he felt there, as many fans would feel if they finally got to go to their favorite fantastical world from their favorite series. However, in many ways Quentin was just so unlikable. I feel like maybe Grossman was trying to write about the bad, depressing things that can be part of the real world, as compared to a fantasy world, but it some sections it came across as boring to read, rather than insightful. I imagine that leaving the trip to Fillory to the end was intentional, but as you wrote, I wish there was more substance to the world they are in before that, especially to some of the characters. I actually liked the connections to Harry Potter and Narnia. I heard in an interview Grossman did that he originally had the characters having long discussion about HP and Narnia, but then took out most of it and left in little references instead; I kind of feel like the original version may have been more interesting. I feel like in some sections, the writing and unpredictability were pulling me along, even if I wasn’t interested in what was going on in the book at that particular moment.

    I kind of feel like the ending, with them going back to Fillory, contradicted the message of the book, but maybe there will be more questioning of fantasy worlds in the next book. I enjoyed the first book enough to read the second one. From what I’ve heard, there’s a large portion of it dedicated to a female character. I am/was really looking forward to that, but Evan’s comment has me feeling a bit of dread …

    Thanks again for the review, and I just want to add that I’ve really been enjoying various posts on your blog about gender equality and literature, even if I don’t comment often.

  12. Tom Martin says:

    Excellent review, you hit the nail on the head.

    Similarly to what has been mentioned in other comments, I only got about half way through the book before I had to put it down and seek out other opinions to make sure I wasn’t the only one that thought this was sexist puerile trash. Eventually it becomes impossible to separate Quentins flagrant sexism from Grosmans. The final nail in the coffin for me was when Quentin notices that Janet has gotten her nose pierced, ‘and probably other parts of her’. By then I’d seen so many situations where breasts just magically appear in front of the protagonist for absolutely no reason.

    The real worry for me personally is not that Grossman is a sexist hack. It’s that this book has gotten some stellar reviews which have completely failed to pick up on this very obvious, very jarring sexism. What has happened to literary criticism? Or are critics for Sci fi and fantasy novels just the kind of horny males that Grossman is writing for.

  13. lisa says:

    So I just finished the book and I googled ‘people angry at the magicians because it’s fucking sexist’ hoping to find some catharsis and comfort, because i felt a little dirty for finishing it. And I got your review, and a lovely set of comments too. 🙂 Thank you. I don’t understand how this was a best seller. So many horrific quotes, you’re right you could have gone on forever – but ‘she hit like a girl,’ being said about a magician powerful enough to kill the person she was hitting, was one of the ones I yelled at the book for, alone in my office. I couldn’t stop reading because I liked the writing, and the other characters, and I clung to the hope that Quentin would experience some self-actualizing moment at the end. Would earn his forgiveness from himself, the other characters, and ME. But, NOPE. He ‘did his time’ being alone. Then he got to go play in his fantasy again, WITH THE WOMAN HE FIRST HAD A CRUSH ON. I just. What the holy fuck. Sigh. Again, so glad to find this. Cheers.

  14. qb says:

    Omg…I am so glad I found this review. I read this book last summer (and had reviews before picking it) and was so excited for it because as a longtime fantasy/scifi reader and someone who loved narnia and hp as a kid/teenager, it seemed like it’d be great and up my alley. But holy crap I could not get through the sexist undertones throughout…I read the whole thing thinking “Ok so obviously we’re supposed to hate Quentin, so let’s see the end..” but when Grossman fridged Alice, I was so angry that the book had gotten good reviews. And I took the internet thinking I must’ve just missed the negatives and it was so hard to find
    I only looked again to convince some friends not to read it (because they enjoy the TV show on Syfy–which I may check out because surely this adaptation can’t be like the book) and your review says my thoughts so eloquently and with evidence!

  15. Ceshomru says:

    I just cant get over the fact that artic foxes and polar bears are in the north pole!! The book references real foxes “knowing” the kids are not actually foxes…. uhmmm WTF!?!?

  16. Ian says:

    I read this book after watching the first couple of episodes of the TV series, which thankfully avoids a solid 75% of the book’s sexism by simple dint of not being able to replicate the narration, and by telling both his and Julia’s stories (from, apparently, the second book) at the same time and giving them comparable importance (not to mention speeding her story so that her desire to learn magic reads as determination and not a sign that she’s pathetic). Not knowing anything about the book, the show had made me quite optimistic about the source material, meaning I was very unpleasantly surprised by the reality. Long story short, everything you say here is spot on. What’s more, the preview of the second, allegedly Julia-centered, book not only still follows Quentin’s point of view, but apparently implies that their lives as Not!Narnian monarchs is just as meandering as their post-graduation lives were. Meaning…what was the point of this book?

  17. […] satirising of Lee Sizemore, as with Zack Snyder’s Suckerpunch and Lev Grossman’s The Magicians, the straight white male gaze is still so embedded as a lazy default that Westworld ends up […]

  18. Kerri B. says:

    I know it is nearly five years after you posted this review, but I just need to say thank you. I also read The Magicians while taking notes on the repeated and blatant sexism (as well as the casual racism and incredibly thin representation of homosexuality), not because I was planning to write a review, but simply so I could vent! You point out so many of the same things that irked me as I read and helped me articulate some niggling problems I couldn’t put my finger on. Reading your review and the responses of your lovely readers has been extremely cathartic!

    P.S. My husband found your review after listening to me rant about this book, and he and I plan to read much more of your work!

  19. Ash says:

    Gosh thanks for this review. I just finished this book and casted around for reviews to see if I was going mad for finding this book as unnecessarily nihilistic, sexist, and cynical as I did. And while I have found a bunch of reviews reflecting some of this, I’ve been concerned that I didn’t find many commenting on the crass sexism and unrepentant male gaze running through this book. Most importantly the treatment of Alice and the total lack of any comeback on the protagonist regarding his constant blame-spreading for his destruction of their relationship. The author never corrects this, which means the author is normalising and condoning it. It’s terrible and it’s important that you’ve noted is where so few seem to have.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s