ShopDreamUp AI ArtDreamUp
Deviation Actions
It happened again, after reading several good books I once again dared to read a book that was so short yet so horrible that it triggered a rant so big that it did not fit on goodreads and so I once again post it here. Because of this the next good fantasy book I review will be published here as well. I can't just write about horrible books.
Now Cassandra Clare is the author of a series of, no idea why, bestselling fantasy books, with one movie in the making. She is basically one of those mediocre writers, at best, who came to prominence after Stephanie Meyers rape of the vampire fiction and like a vampire remain walking no matter what. Her writing in general isn't good but this book is part of a series that so far is just plain horrible. I never liked the main character in the other books because he was 300 years old but acted like a spoiled teenager. And this series where he is the main character makes it even worse.
A friend of mine wrote this: shit like this usually happens in some badly written fanfics. Plus all self-respecting fanfic writers won't make such a mistake anyway.
And I think she is right. Just like how easy it was to show what was wrong with this book, so easy would it be for anybody who reads this to do it better. This book read like really bad fanfiction. I am sure everybody reading this book could have done a better job with just a little effort and also an honest editor. But apparently these authors had neither.
Gosh how can you do so much wrong in so little time (the book has only 60 pages)? And I personally think this book was only better than the 1st not because of the writers but rather because it was shorter and only dealt with one story, so there was not as much possibility to mess up, but even these chances they used it to the full advantage. So the book was better in comparison, but not good, not even remotely.
I think I know the recipe to like this book:
1. Completely eradicate any sort of disbelief.
2. Do not know history.
3. Have no knowledge of normal human behavior.
4. Do not know any other of Clare's books and if you do erase their content from your memory.
5. Throw logic out of the window
If you follow these five steps you will probably enjoy this book. Although if you do this I wonder how you can tell the difference between a good book and a bad book.
Even if you say that the historical events are there and correctly referred to (which I do not believe) there is still the problem that their usage are cliché and of course there are problems with all those people, including and first among them Magnus himself.
He is not the same asshole he was in What Happened in Peru but he was still an asshole. In this book he was a fashion-obsessed, cock-crazy diva who cared about nothing but himself and was so dumb that Bella Swan from Twilight looks like a genius next to him.
And the story itself was not only cliché (I knew what "queen" would appear before starting it) it was all so jumbled together that it was hard to say whether something was historically inaccurate or one of the many plotholes. And there were many, there were so many, the whole book had just so many clichés, inaccuracies and plotholes it was unbelievable.
Now people might say that it is just fiction and the like and many surely would but I do not think this is a good thing to do. Because on average when you insert actual historical events into your story people will automatically consider this to be the grain of truth into it so as an author you have the responsibility to make sure that what you use is as accurate as possible to the best of your abilities and I think this is not what the author's did, not even remotely. If it were it would not have been so easy for me to spot the inaccuracies and downright weirdness. I know people don't like Wikipedia but if you do not want to check all sorts of books at least use that and check their sources if you don't believe them. But not even that the authors seem to have done.
This book already started so horrible and my trust to the author's writing abilities was so non-existent I found myself asking questions about nearly every second sentence and that only over the first 4 pages. A5 pages I might add. And I just don't understand what they are doing. They already messed up the character in "What happened in Peru" and it is no better here. And why are they doing this? Especially to the fans. I know fans of Magnus who already did not like how he was in the first Chronicles book and I doubt it will be much better here. And even if in later ones he suddenly changes it still doesn't change the fact that they wrote these two books, the fans will thereby be forced to ignore these ones. And this is not fair to the fans. I never really liked Magnus but I readily admit that he wasn't this bad in her other series. He had his major flaws but he was not the asshole he was in this book or the previous one.
Ok, I said my opinion about this book without spoiling anything, for those that want to know more, here is the spoiler section which for convenience I structured into several points:
<spoiler>
1) This is history?
The moment I read Magnus statement "It did not help that the queen, Marie Antoinette, when told that her people could not afford bread, had suggested that they eat cake instead." I was looking that up as soon as possible because I do not trust the author's in regards to history at all. And so I did some research and the fact that it was so easy for me to find information, information that can be checked for validity, only made it worse what they did. Not only is it cliché to use this for a story during the French Revolution, there were much more serious problems at that time, even only 2 years into it, but what she wrote is wrong for several reasons:
1) The original statement actually says "brioche" and not cake. And considered that the authors used word like monsieur or cabriolet they should have used brioche as well and just weave the explanation into the story if they wanted to. You know brioche is not a cake; it is a highly enriched bread of French origin, whose high egg and butter content give it a rich and tender crumb. When most people think of cake that is not what they have in mind.
2) There is no record that this was ever said by Antoinette nor that any of the opponents of the monarchy ever stated this about her. It appeared in Rousseau's "Confessions" autobiography in 1765, when Antoinette was nine years old (and not even in France), so it apparently could not have been of her doing and probably did not refer to her. The phrase was of great symbolic importance for later pro-revolutionary historians however it was first attributed to her by Alphonse Karr in "Les Guepes" of March, 1843, so more than 50 years later. As far as I could find out Marie-Antoinette was a generous patroness of charity and moved by the plight of the poor when it was brought to her attention, thus making the statement out-of-character for her. Also she supposedly said this during a famine but there were no actual famines during the reign of King Louis XVI and only two incidents of serious bread shortages, which occurred, first, in April–May 1775, a few weeks before the king's, and again in 1788, the year before the French Revolution (to that later). Letters by Antoinette during 1775 suggest an attitude different to what is suggested by the famous "cake" statement. That this phrase was so to say put into her mouth by some discontented individuals is quite possible considered that in the years leading to the revolution she became increasingly unpopular due to her perceived frivolousness and very real extravagance (which were often cited as worsening France's dire financial straits). Also her Austrian birth and femininity were also a major factor in a country where xenophobia and chauvinism still played major parts in national politics. Many anti-monarchists were incorrectly convinced that it was Antoinette who had single-handedly ruined France's finances that their nicknamed her Madame Déficit. In addition, anti-royalists libellists printed stories and articles that attacked the royal family and their courtiers with exaggerations, fictitious events and outright lies. So yeah it could be possible that it was attributed to her at the time, albeit it was over the years also attributed to two of Louis XV's daughters, Madame Sophie and Madame Victoire, among others. But again there is no record whatsoever about it and the book does not reflect this at all. The book/Magnus question only the accusations about sexual frivolities, not about her attitudes in any way, and they do not mention the accusations about financial ruin. Had they treated this statement as rumor I would have said fine but they state it as fact and completely ignore everything else and that is possibly what bothers me most.
And while writing this I noticed: where is the xenophobia and chauvinism of late 18th century France? I already noticed how easily accepted Magnus was, but there is really no hints towards these other things, not at all. This seems rather like modern France in this way.
The book states that there would be periodic killings, fires and attacks, but references nothing to point towards any historical events. The book states that living in Paris was like living in a powder keg that was stacked on tops of several other power kegs, which were in a ship tossing blindly at sea. That might be true and yeah there was the Women's March on Versailles two years ago in October1789 but what did that statement refer to? As is obvious by the book, Magnus's "adventure" is the author's retelling of the Flight to Varennes in Jun1791 (it later states that the royal family was captured in that place) and that is the problem. The Champ de Mars Massacre was in July 1791 and the Reign of Terror did not start before 1793, so I have no idea what the authors are referring to, if they haven't made it up entirely. I think by now it should be clear that their statements are untrustworthy in regard to history.
In connection with the vampires of Paris the book mentions some sort of vampire craze in 1787 and missing children at the time when the also the so called blood parties started. Whether there were missing children during that year I have no idea, I could find nothing, however the book mentions two people called Henri and Brigitte who are stated to be among these children/young people and are said to be the nephew and niece of the Duke de Polignac. Now the title was originally created in 1780 and was not hereditary until 1783. In 1787 the Duke was Jules de Polignac, 1st Duke of Polignac a French nobleman and husband of Yolande de Polastron, the confidant of Queen Marie Antoinette. This already makes it weird to me that his supposed nephew and niece just disappeared without any investigations, but I do not know much about the then system of France. Now the duke was the fourth of five children so he could have had nephews and nieces. I found a Louis Héracle Armand de Polignac but that one was born in 1853. I also found a Camille Henri Melchior comte de Polignac born in 1871, but that one supposedly died in 1855, so I have no idea if there were ever a Henri and Brigitte who were related to the Duke de Polignac during that time and went missing. Maybe someone more knowledgeable in French history knows whether they existed but I found nothing. Just like I don't know whether the catacombs of Paris where accessible enough that it was extremely easy to snatch someone from the street and drag them below like the book claims.
Now let's come to the Women's March on Versailles which the book glosses over with the sentence The peasant women had broken into the palace of Versailles.
This is in my eyes a weird reference to this event. You would think someone living in Paris for 6 years would, two years after the Women's March on Versailles at least know, some numbers (it was a mob of thousands). Or someone using Wikipedia in the case of the authors. And "breaking in" isn't that exact either, the protesters discovered that a small gate to the palace was unguarded and thereby entered after having the palace under "siege". At that time several had already met with the king. And the authors don't even let Magnus mention that even during the march many demanded Antoinette's death and during the attack on the palace she barely escaped with her life. After the king fled the palace he was back only a day later. And while he lived in Tuileries Palace afterwards he and his family weren't exactly thrown out.
All of this was a huge event with thousands of people and even the march was not exclusively female. Among the many men was Stanislas-Marie Maillard, a popular figure among the market-women, and by unofficial acclamation was given a leadership role. Maillard helped suppress by force of character the mob's worst instincts and deputized a number of women as group leaders and gave a loose sense of order to the proceedings as he led the crowd out of the city in the driving rain. You would think Magnus would know that and think of it in more detail. And damn he doesn't even mention that the family wasn't just living there, they were kept under surveillance. No Von Fersen (yep Hans Axel von Fersen, when I read that name and heard he was from Sweden my worries were confirmed that Magnus would meet Marie) must say that they are prisoners, if that is true that is. How is that even possible?
Now you could say for these last few points that Magnus could not have known or not cared enough, but that is weird for someone supposedly known in the high society of Paris and over whom the book/Magnus claims that it was sensible to him that the people should demand and receive food, and firewood, and all the basic needs of life.
I find that pretty hard to believe all and that brings me directly to my next point.
2) They expect us to believe that?
Magnus described Paris to smell like cheese and fish. And then suddenly also like the smell of people. First this is bad writing since they suddenly throw it in. And the authors claim all of this smelled of life. Ok, to be fair, rot and the like is part of life, but what person thinks that dirt and rotting organic material, and all sorts of waste products, smells so much like life? We are humans and not cockroaches. Or are we to assume that this is Magnus' "demon heritage" coming through, the heritage which doesn't really seem to have any downsides so far.
Paris of 1791 is at first described as some sort of fashion center (before the author suddenly says "not", so to speak), so are we to assume that it was so fashionable for everyone? There are wigs high enough to the ceiling of wigs with boats in them? No idea of course whether that is accurate, especially since later in the novel the authors describe similar wigs for the vampires and call it out of fashion, but it doesn't matter either way. At first the authors only speak of those fashionable people and then suddenly they say the revolution put a damper in it and that the unwashed masses had taken over. So apparently it was not so great, but even when fashion was at its height only an idiot would think that this was how it was for the majority of the people.
And speaking of all the fashion: supposedly In Paris one could have the eyes of a cat (as he did) and tell people it was a trick of fashion. All these people belief it is a fashion trick? How? How is that possible back then? Today you can use contact lenses sure, but back then? I know of dildos among the ancient Greeks but of contact lenses in 18th century France? How does that work?
And that is not even the basic problem: According to Clare Magnus is "Asian", whatever that means since he is of mixed Dutch and Jakartan ancestry, but either way according to her he does not look European. And there comes into mind what I wrote above. Marie Antoinette was as pale as can be and she already had problems due to being born in Austria, Magnus was born in Jakarta (than Batavia according to the first book of the chronicles) and he is just accepted into high society? I am not making anything up, the book itself says so. They state that Magnus was a close friend with the owner of the Hotel de Soubise. I guess the authors mean Charles, Prince of Soubise (the book speaks of the Prince of Sourbise) who died in 1787 and was once very important but since 1763 lived a life of an ordinary courtier and man of fashion in Paris (which is probably why the authors chose him), which is weird because according to the book Magnus must have arrived in 1786, so how fast did they become friends? And wasn't there something in "What happened in Peru" about Magnus being a stranger everywhere? Not here apparently, here in this book he could walk into any number of great houses in Paris and be warmly greeted.
And it doesn't even stop there: Let's just assume that this is true, that people believe that his eyes are a fashion trick and that he is welcome in every house of the high society. Wouldn't people want to know how he achieves that trick with his eyes and want to copy it? Isn't fashion usually about extravagance, at least those wigs he talks about suggesting that, so wouldn't the people be curious? Wouldn't they want to know? Apparently not since nothing is mentioned here.
And if he is that welcome everywhere in high society and so well known why is no such person mentioned in the history books? The book itself suggests that he draws some attention and von Fersen himself heard of him, so why is it that there is no mentioning of him? And I am not even talking about the real world, there was never any mentioning of him in this fantasy universe as well. Someone that obvious (in the first book he was a wanted criminal in several countries) should be able to be found simply by using google.
And speaking of his looks: what about his glamour? Why is he not using that? Like I said there is the thing with his looks. Sure the authors didn't exactly write that he wasn't using it, however his glamour in regard to himself was only mentioned once near the end of the book when he was somewhere in the Alps and passing as some sort of noble French refugee. Apart from that he only used glamour on other people or objects but not him. Sure, again, the authors never outright say that he is not using it but these sentences strongly suggest it:
Magnus was rarely misidentified. Tall, golden-skinned, cat-eyed men were rare.
But this time when he looked at Magnus, his gaze stayed there for a moment, fixed on the catlike pupils.
This is worse than Jem in The Infernal Devices, at least he looked human. Magnus was in Paris for six years and no one has a problem with him being a warlock with cat eyes or at least not aging?
Oh yeah and apparently Magnus can find a lot of work because the aristocracy of Paris is into magic. And not just card or table tricks, nope its speaking monkeys, birds singing operas, diamonds glowing in different colors and chaise longues (an upholstered sofa in the shape of a chair that is long enough to support the legs) wandering across the room. And there is even more and apparently no one has any sort of problem with that, but for more on that see point 3.
The elder couple Magnus hired could not be surprised by anything because of all those years of living in Paris. Look above, they would not be surprised by that?
Magnus speaks "poor" Swedish, actually he can only say two sentences and one is for asking whether they have anything other than pickled fish (I am not gonna comment on that) and the other is "If you wrap me in furs, I can pretend to be your little fuzzy bear." Who in the late 18th century would talk like that? Especially in Sweden. Brown bears where still around in many European areas at the time and they only became "cute" after they became endangered and no longer regularly encountered.
Of course the weird stuff doesn't stop with Magnus. Let's go top Hans Axel von Fersen the Younger, which is strangely only referred to as Axel here. Either way this Axel was the one planning the flight of the royal family, which refers to the flight to Varennes, and he only wants the glamour for Marie Antoinette, not for the king, because supposedly the queen is more recognizable than the king because the king is not… a handsome man. Gazes do not linger on his face. What people recognize are his clothes, and carriage, all the external signs of his royal status. The people would not recognize the face of the king? You could say that this is just Axel but considered how often Clare let her characters (Clary, Tessa) mention beauty in similar fashion and with similar importance I think this sentence is rather typical for Clare and the shallowness many of her characters portray. Ok, maybe it is true that more people would have recognized the queen but before the flight he wasn't generally loved either. And even if, we are supposed to believe that people do not recognize the face of their king? No one would do that? No one? Because that is what Axel suggests. And the biggest smack in the face of this nonsense is that the flight to Varennes is so called because their flight only lasted until then, it failed because the king was recognized and that by a simple postmaster (and the whole family was disguised as bourgeoisie at the time). The book itself says so and we are supposed to belief that Axel was so stupid that he thought people would recognize the queen but not the king?
And speaking of the glamour for Marie: Magnus is in her room, stays in the shadows, tells her that she notices nothing and then performs her magic on her. Now she heard him of course, just looked around her room in confusion and returned to her pacing and Magnus applied the glamour. Now what was that? Did he use magic for that? Did she simply not care? That is a huge plothole because this woman had to take over state business because of her emotionally paralyzed husband, was threatened with death over the last year and when hearing a strange voice seemingly coming from nowhere she basically does nothing?
And when she gets captured by the vampires of Paris later on (where she acts like a blabbering idiot) these idiots believe Magnus's stupid story about her being a job by a costumer, who paid to have some women act and look like the queen. One even notices that she has a glamour on her and they have supersensitive hearing and none notices Magnus's sigh of relief (he only cared about them seeing it)? And later when Magnus is with the queen in a room alone she throws objects at him (finally) and none of the vampires hears that and comes to investigate? I mean the big bad vampire wanted her for himself and that in good condition, and a fight might damage what he sees as his new property. Are their senses down and is Magnus too "Asian" for them to read his face? Are they suffering from the other race effect and temporal deafness? And they let Magnus alone with the Queen? That Magnus? The guy who is totally whimsical?
This is typical Clare writing, not actually being able to visualize what you yourself created.
And we are supposed to believe that the queen was so dumb just to wander through Paris and get lost all by herself? Or Axel for that matter? The plan for the flight was for the queen to pose as the maid of the Marquise de Tourzel. No way would they have lost her.
And the head vampire Marcel Saint Cloud … he is supposedly such a big and badass vampire that not even Magnus, the king of mannerlessness (is that even a word?), does not risk anger him, but apparently not enough to truly hide his sarcasm of said vampire's underlings. But either way that vampire says We all have our weaknesses, and our weaknesses must be indulged if they are to flourish. What badass vampire talks that way? This way he might as well give his next best enemy a stake and let himself be killed or walk into the sun. And I mentioned the Duke of Polignac, well the vampire's underlings Henri and Brigitte are the Duke's nephew and niece and the Duke's wife is a confident of Marie Antoinette. This supposedly big bad vampire has a direct relative of someone that is so close to the queen of France and he never uses that? There is no mentioning of that whatsoever? Not even Magnus asking or speculating about it? These two highly valuable slaves are not used for something more?
And when Magnus mentions the name Axel to the Queen she suddenly calms down. Are we to assume that Axel did not tell the queen about Magnus' involvement? That she does not at least speculate who she is? Well no idea because the book doesn't explain this, again.
And that is not everything. Once they are in Magnus's glamoured balloon (it was made invisible), the queen touched the basket, her eyes wide with a childlike wonder. She drew herself up slowly and peered over the side of the basket, took one look at the view below, and fainted dead away.
WHAT????? Over the course of the last two years this woman was nearly killed, under surveillance, had to manage the state and had while standing on the balcony after the women's march in 1791 had muskets pointed in her direction and who knows what else. Now this woman faints because of that? And believe me she doesn't stay conscious the whole time afterwards either.
And the escape… Magnus can reach with his mind all over Paris, take possession of a rolled up balloon, roll it, make it inflate itself, glamour it invisible and guide it with his mind towards him, avoiding several buildings in the process but he cannot get himself and the queen out by any other method? A method like making a carpet fly and turning them invisible. There is no way that would require more energy than the balloon. And the book stated itself that he can do make carpet's fly and that he once flew while on the back of migratory birds. And there is no way the two and the carpet would have required more energy than getting that balloon to them and then keeping it invisible. And if there was no carpet, which I doubt since the "big bad" vampire had all sorts of stuff in his house, Magnus surely could have found something else to ride on, heck he could ride on the backs of birds and even the largest bird on earth would not be able to carry a full grown man. This is not simply hard to believe it is one giant plothole and to be honest all examples of point 1 and 2 could easily fit into the now coming point 3.
3) Plotholes over plotholes
Magnus was in Paris in 1791, the same year he was, according to the first book of the chronicles, in Peru for a job in the guano trade. The whole episode in this book refers to the Flight to Varennes, so it was around the 21thJune1791 and afterwards he was in the Alps for weeks. So he could not have left Europe before July. When was he in Peru? How did he get there so fast? A portal or what? Even the fastest ship would need weeks.
So Magnus has a cabriolet carriage (not that it's called a carriage, as usual the readers has to figure that out him/herself) and I looked that up. It is drawn by a horse, open at the front and has a driver in the back. Where is the driver? And the author writes that it was brutally hot inside his cabriolet, but how can that be if it is open at the front? Was it hot outside already. And would he even need a fan in that case, would it be of any use? Wouldn't the outside air be enough as long as the cabriolet is not too slow?
And speaking of that little fan:
So Magnus animated a Chinese fan for cooling… A cabriolet is open at the front, where is the fan placed to be hidden? Also the previous book stated how Magnus could do earthquakes and now he can only make a fan that can barely stir a breeze?
If he can make earthquakes according to book 1 of the chronicles why can he not change the weather and thereby have the ballooning he wanted?
As part of the magic he performs for the high society Magnus mentions stars appearing on their cheeks, heart shaped beauty-spots, flame shooting fountains and even speaking monkeys, birds singing operas, diamonds glowing in different colors and chaise longues (an upholstered sofa in the shape of a chair that is long enough to support the legs) wander across the room. And people think this is all just tricks? Or are they all that much into magic? If yes why is there not demand for more serious stuff? Like trying to stop the revolution.
He covers for rain in the cabriolet? These things are open at the front so what cover would they provide? Also on the previous page he cast a spell to make it that the rain rolled off an invisible canopy he had conjured just over his head. So what does he care about the rain? Did the spell wear off? Was it not sufficient? Doesn't he want to draw attention to being dry in this rain?
Of course Paris is a vampire terrain, but why are there no faeries? I get the lack of werewolves, somewhat, but in the Mortal Instruments ad Infernal Devices the faeries had no problem with New York City or London so why should they not reside in Paris here? If the high society of Paris has supposedly so many imaginative sexual tastes, why aren't they visited by faeries as well. I might get that no demons are in Paris because vampires keep them out, or maybe even the apparently useless Shadowhunters, but why are there no faeries?
And this time Magnus is golden-skinned, in other books it was yellow or brown and now golden.
And Axel was worth it. All the trouble this job brought Magnus. Based on what? We barely know the guy, he barely knows the guy and the ending doesn't suggest that Axel was worth it. And speaking of these two, why does Axel trust Magnus so much? He lets him go into the queen's chambers alone, with no one there. He barely knows the guy.
Magnus spent far more of the next day and evening worrying about Saint Cloud's party than about his business with the royal family. I guess this is supposed to mean that the vampires at the party are more dangerous. Maybe…
Why does Magnus only make a spark in a corner to distract the guard in front of the queen's chamber? When entering the building he used a glamour that made him appear like a large cat but here he only uses a spark? Why not make the guy fall asleep while standing?
Oh yeah the vampire party. Apparently there is a small army of underlings who scrap up the dripping candle wax. Wouldn't it be smarter to simply install some device under the candles so all the wax would be caught? If that would have even been necessary I might add, most chandeliers with wax candles already have such a thing around the candle holder and seriously I had used tons of candles in my live and usually the wax melds and vaporizes, there isn't much dripping down. Or are we to assume it was different back then?
How did the Queen get lost in the city if she was supposed to be with the Marquise? And if Magnus knows that Paris is full of vampires and it is blackest night, why did this idiot not cast a glamour that also works on vampires?
Why can the vampire Marcel Saint Cloud just raise a hand and silence the queen? Did he enchante her or something?
Not only is the queen unconscious most of the time during the balloon ride but when she finally wakes up the asks some stupid question and then puts her head back down, apparently being unconscious again because later Magnus has to wake her again, by prodding her with his foot. And once they crash land in the Seine and Magnus has to pull her out ("accidentally close" to the Tuileries where they started) surprise she is unconscious again. From what? Did she get no air anymore? Did she hit her head? You know what I know the reason: This way the authors don't have to deal with portraying her as an actual person. No idea whether it was consciously or unconsciously. And speaking of this, supposedly Magnus and Axel had agreed that Magnus was to send a blue flash into the sky should anything go wrong. Apart from the fact that this would surely attract unwanted attention, if they agreed on this why was Magnus out of the building and on the way to the vampire party directly after glamouring the queen? Did he lie? Did he not tell him that he couldn't be there all the time?
Was he supposed to shoot the spark out of the queen's chambers? What sort of stupid plan is this anyway?
Magnus was genuinely shocked when it was Axel who instigated the kiss—how sudden it was, how passionate, how all of Paris, and all the vampires, and the Seine and the balloon and everything fell away and it was just the two of them for one moment. One perfect moment.
Where did that come from? The two barely even talked. Is Axel so incredibly grateful? Does this 35 year old man suddenly has the hots for 19 year old looking Magnus?
And after all this Magnus is visited at his apartment by the vampire underling Henri who tells him should he decline this current invitation of Saint Clod Paris would be a very uncomfortable place for Magnus. Magnus says that he didn't want to offense anyone (yeah right) and that he accepts his punishment. What punishment? And since we are at it, why doesn't Saint Cloud send some vampire thugs to simply knock Magnus unconscious. They are strong and fast surely they could knock him down before he can use his magic.
Gosh, so many plotholes and so many clichés also. Well 3 down, 3 more points to go.
4) Can you really do nothing else but cliché?
So many clichés … I guess it's best if I just list them:
1) French aristocracy has special needs in terms of sex
2) French society was the most decadent Magnus had ever met
3) Magnus's friends are silly but mostly harmless. Typical for these Clare books, everyone not a main character is basically a moron.
4) Magnus has booked a balloon ride by the famous Mongolfier brothers
5) That this Henri de Polignac was somehow connected to vampires I guessed even before reading it and that is not good if a book is that predictable.
6) The worst thing about Henri is that he is boring in Magnus's eyes… Why don't the authors just outright say that Magnus is a hedonist? They would save a lot of time with that.
7) Henri only calls his vampire master "Master"? What is he, some cliché Igor?
8) Bothering Magnus is of course sooo bad. How is it possible to write such an unlikeable character and at the same time thinking that he is nice?
9) When starting this book I knew there would either be an attractive blond man, an attractive redhead woman or (which I considered most likely) an attractive man with black hair and blue eyes and look how right I was. And the guy even wears expensive clothes of obviously fine quality. And look how happy Magnus is, that now the universe gave him this after sending Henri to him and denying him his balloon ride. And of course this noble man is different, most nobles Magnus met had the absentminded air of people who had never had to take care of any matters of importance. Are these authors choosing to write only in stereotype or can they really not do any different?
10) Marie Antoinette and Hans Axel Graf (Count) von Fersen appear in this novel and interact with Magnus and at least Axel has the hots for the queen. Never mind that all we have of their alleged romance are rumors and that it is impossible to verify and maybe even highly unlike because the queen was rarely ever alone anywhere.
11) Saint Cloud was old, possibly one of Vlad's very first vampire court. The guy knew Vlad Tepez? The Dracula is a vampire here also. *rolleyes*
12) The Marquis de Sade was at the vampire party shortly before Magnus arrived.
13) The queen wanders off, gets lost and captured by the vampires.
14) Saint Cloud is a very attractive vampire.
So many clichés both by the standards of YA and especially Cassandra Clare. Of course the biggest is once again Magnus, well you got a few glimpses of him in the above sections but now it's time to take a look at him.
5) Magnus always Magnus
In theory much in this section could also be among the plotholes because they often downright make no sense. Unless I invent stuff and fill them and I refuse to do that. That is the author's job and not mine.
Magnus still mostly cares about how he looks, or more precise what he wears. He downright states that when you look as fabulous as him you have to wear everything or nothing at all. I am not making that up the author really wrote that. I have no problem with stuff like Noblesse oblige, so noble ancestry constrains to honorable behavior; privilege entails to responsibility and so on but this here is ridiculous.
And I really wonder what Magnus considers to be friendship. Because his friends apparently allow him a lot (using their kitchen staff and foods) when he needs it, but what does he do for them? And before the revolution he was and supposedly is friends with all the high society, but now its problematic to be seen in their company. What friend talks that way?
It really was getting difficult to be wonderful.
This is what Magnus thinks when he walks through the Bois de Boulogne where people grow potatoes for food. All this in 1791, two years after the Woman's March of Versailles which had among its causes the fact that famine was a real and ever-present dread for the lower strata of the Third Estate, and rumors of an "aristocrats' plot" to starve the poor were rampant and readily believed. But of course he always felt for the poor and the wretched. So far there is no mentioning that he ever even lifted a finger to help them. Sure he wanted to help that one enslaved harpist at the vampire party and supposedly cared whether the two people working for him were hurt. But he did nothing at all in either case, like I said nothing to help anybody if there was nothing directly in for him. He doesn't seem to do anything about the situation in Paris in general, doesn't even notify/help the Shadowhunters fighting the vampires.
If at all he seems to be annoyed by the commoners. He apparently would never sacrifice his high society life for them despite how much he "feels" for them. He doesn't seem to feel enough for them to endure the smell, nope Magnus rather smells at a jasmine-scented cloth. And if he loves the Paris air so much why did he have to cover his nose with a jasmine-scented cloth only two pages before?
And during that time all he looks for in the park are lovebirds, he seems rather annoyed that people are more interested in the revolution. Talk about priorities. I already wrote that Paris was suddenly like a powder keg. Well Magnus's behavior certainly doesn't reflect that. Not even remotely.
Magnus was able to rest on a flying flock of migratory birds and fly on carpets but he is afraid of ballooning?
Of course the balloon is not fanciful enough for Magnus. He actually has better clothes than the balloon. Wasn't it supposedly the thrill of flying that sparked Magnus' interest? And wasn't he a bit scared? Shouldn't he be more interesting in how sturdy the balloon is then instead of its colors?
The authors literally state that there was nothing Magnus attached more importance to than a whim. What? And this guy tries to have stable relationships?
Ok so Magnus says himself that you should not turn down an invitation from a "Parisian vampire" but at the same time he peels one of his gloves from his hand simply for having something to do? Shouldn't the fact that he has to deal with such vampires affect him with a bit more than pure boredom?
He knew his shoes were unsuitable for a walk in the park, which he knew he would do, but he wore them anyway because they were new and pretty and by Jacques of the rue des Balais and could not be resisted. Ok I know Magnus is about fashion but this is ridiculous. This way his fashion will be ruined in an instant, is he that mercurial?
He considers leaving Paris for some other location because of the problematic situation with the revolution and considers several and suddenly he says Perhaps it was best to stay in Paris.
What is this? Are the authors writing that on purpose or are they simply that incompetent regarding characterization?
1-2 hours to dress for opera? Is the dress so complicated that magic is not enough or does he need so long to decide? Why does he care so much for a wardrobe?
The good of Paris is in Magnus's eyes all the buildings and material objects? Because if there is more it's not mentioned anywhere.
It is annoying that professional appearances must be kept… it was annoying to see Henri, it was annoying apparently to talk about the vampires of Paris, it was annoying that people judged him for his dress, it was annoying that it wasn't sunny… is there anything on this earth that doesn't annoy him?
Calling his magic power a conjuring trick is an insult in Magnus's eyes, but a few pages before he had no problem in people believing his eyes were a fashion trick. And calling his powers marvel of course is good in Magnus's ears.
Magnus speaks poor Swedish… being able to speak only two sentences is not "poor Swedish" it is "not knowing the language."
No one has harmed the royal family? Well I guess being threatened like in the Woman's March on Versailles doesn't count as "harmed" in the author's eyes. Which are Magnus's eyes of course.
Of course Magnus wastes precious time to examine the queen's looks, never mind that she is in danger and he has more than one event to attend that day. By the way he of course examines Saint Cloud's beauty as well.
And apparently if someone kisses Saint Cloud's ass they are sycophants but according to book 1 of the chronicles if someone does it with Marcus that one is his favorite friend. Also this book claims that Magnus tends to buy his furniture. Oh really… in City of Bones he stated that the table and coffee were technically stolen.
He spent the night at the petite maison of Madame de ——, one of his more recent lovers.
He cannot even remember her name? How many does he have on average?
Von Fersen' flushed cheeks made Magnus's heart flutter a bit. Of course his looks make Magnus accept, what else should be important right? As typical for a book by Clare there is detailed description of Von Fersen's looks and how beautiful he is. Later on the book downright states in his mind now there was only von Fersen. And he rushes into danger head on because of it. Talk about being controlled by your cock. And speaking of Von Fersen: shouldn't he be a bit more controlled? And why is Magnus so sure of flirting with Axel? This is 1791 not 1991. And although he hears Axel talking so much about the queen's beauty Magnus simply wants to move away from the subject. Yeah of course he wouldn't be reminded that he has no chance or maybe the authors want to show how "deep" Magnus is. Not that Magnus doesn't get what he wants. I mean later Axel suddenly kisses him in front of the carriage with the royal family. I guess we are supposed to believe that Magnus is so smitten by Axel and vice versa. The authors don't seem to stop to show us how smitten Magnus is. Maybe I would believe that if Magnus had not refused to help Axel later when Axel's sister asked him for it and stated that she thinks Axel's life is at risk.
The reason Magnus burned the note/letter from Axel's sister was:
Axel would return to Paris. Of that, Magnus was sure.
Vampires, fey folk, werewolves, Shadowhunters, and demons—these things made sense to Magnus. But the mundane world—it seemed to have no pattern, no form. Their quicksilver politics. Their short lives . . .
And you know what? This is the end:
Magnus thought once again of the blueeyed man standing in his parlor. Then he lit a match and burned the note.
This is how he treats people he has the hots for? This is how he treats people whom he likes? He refuses to help because he cannot deal with "mundane politics?" Asshole, plain and simple, asshole. I wish in her next book in TMI Clare would kill him but sadly I don't think so. Based on her Bane Chronicles so far I am pretty sure she will let him be with Alec again.
And I will tell you why I think this. Believe me so far I analyzed nothing, I simply noticed, now I will analyze.
6) Why don't you just say so outright?
The writing style of saying this is how it is and then no its not is useless. They could have shortened that significantly and no information would have been lost.
But the main point is that the authors, and especially Clare, do not have to point out in all those non TMI series that Magnus's favorite traits are black hair and blue eyes. We get it; Alec is supposed to be perfect for him. And although I personally think that Alec should get rid of Magnus once and for all I think currently Clare plans to have both be together again. You know in this little book the scene of Axel kissing Magnus in front of other is very reminiscent of Alec kissing Magnus in City of Glass.
There is also the topic of Von Fersen's look. Now I do not know whether he chose his looks or chose him because of it, but either way the message of favorite physical traits are clear.
And in case people are wondering why I said "chose his looks" there is something you might not know. There is no real consistency on how Von Fersen looked. The descriptions of his eyes vary from hazel, to green, blue or even dark brown. His hair is similarly disputed, while it is said that he used to dye it black some believe that it was naturally light brown or dark blond.
But of course once again the message is the same: Magnus prefers black hair and blue eyes.
And while it is not necessary for my statement I found this curious typo:
"The escape is to be made on Sunday," Alex went on.
This should mean "Axel", as was evident by the other sentences around it. While mistyping Axel to Alex is maybe not that farfetched it is interesting since Alex is a common short form for Alexander which is Alec's full name from the Mortal Instruments. Of course I cannot speak for the keyboard of the authors but on mine x and c are very close together, so I do wonder whether someone didn't want to, unconsciously probably, type "Alec." And perhaps the authors chose to refer to von Fersen as Axel instead of Hans because of this, again, annoying reference to Alec.
Why do they even bother with it? Just get some fortune teller who tells Magnus that his "big love" will have these traits. And maybe even give some details so he can recognize him. At least that would be an explanation for his mercurial dating/relationship habits.
Now Cassandra Clare is the author of a series of, no idea why, bestselling fantasy books, with one movie in the making. She is basically one of those mediocre writers, at best, who came to prominence after Stephanie Meyers rape of the vampire fiction and like a vampire remain walking no matter what. Her writing in general isn't good but this book is part of a series that so far is just plain horrible. I never liked the main character in the other books because he was 300 years old but acted like a spoiled teenager. And this series where he is the main character makes it even worse.
A friend of mine wrote this: shit like this usually happens in some badly written fanfics. Plus all self-respecting fanfic writers won't make such a mistake anyway.
And I think she is right. Just like how easy it was to show what was wrong with this book, so easy would it be for anybody who reads this to do it better. This book read like really bad fanfiction. I am sure everybody reading this book could have done a better job with just a little effort and also an honest editor. But apparently these authors had neither.
Gosh how can you do so much wrong in so little time (the book has only 60 pages)? And I personally think this book was only better than the 1st not because of the writers but rather because it was shorter and only dealt with one story, so there was not as much possibility to mess up, but even these chances they used it to the full advantage. So the book was better in comparison, but not good, not even remotely.
I think I know the recipe to like this book:
1. Completely eradicate any sort of disbelief.
2. Do not know history.
3. Have no knowledge of normal human behavior.
4. Do not know any other of Clare's books and if you do erase their content from your memory.
5. Throw logic out of the window
If you follow these five steps you will probably enjoy this book. Although if you do this I wonder how you can tell the difference between a good book and a bad book.
Even if you say that the historical events are there and correctly referred to (which I do not believe) there is still the problem that their usage are cliché and of course there are problems with all those people, including and first among them Magnus himself.
He is not the same asshole he was in What Happened in Peru but he was still an asshole. In this book he was a fashion-obsessed, cock-crazy diva who cared about nothing but himself and was so dumb that Bella Swan from Twilight looks like a genius next to him.
And the story itself was not only cliché (I knew what "queen" would appear before starting it) it was all so jumbled together that it was hard to say whether something was historically inaccurate or one of the many plotholes. And there were many, there were so many, the whole book had just so many clichés, inaccuracies and plotholes it was unbelievable.
Now people might say that it is just fiction and the like and many surely would but I do not think this is a good thing to do. Because on average when you insert actual historical events into your story people will automatically consider this to be the grain of truth into it so as an author you have the responsibility to make sure that what you use is as accurate as possible to the best of your abilities and I think this is not what the author's did, not even remotely. If it were it would not have been so easy for me to spot the inaccuracies and downright weirdness. I know people don't like Wikipedia but if you do not want to check all sorts of books at least use that and check their sources if you don't believe them. But not even that the authors seem to have done.
This book already started so horrible and my trust to the author's writing abilities was so non-existent I found myself asking questions about nearly every second sentence and that only over the first 4 pages. A5 pages I might add. And I just don't understand what they are doing. They already messed up the character in "What happened in Peru" and it is no better here. And why are they doing this? Especially to the fans. I know fans of Magnus who already did not like how he was in the first Chronicles book and I doubt it will be much better here. And even if in later ones he suddenly changes it still doesn't change the fact that they wrote these two books, the fans will thereby be forced to ignore these ones. And this is not fair to the fans. I never really liked Magnus but I readily admit that he wasn't this bad in her other series. He had his major flaws but he was not the asshole he was in this book or the previous one.
Ok, I said my opinion about this book without spoiling anything, for those that want to know more, here is the spoiler section which for convenience I structured into several points:
<spoiler>
1) This is history?
The moment I read Magnus statement "It did not help that the queen, Marie Antoinette, when told that her people could not afford bread, had suggested that they eat cake instead." I was looking that up as soon as possible because I do not trust the author's in regards to history at all. And so I did some research and the fact that it was so easy for me to find information, information that can be checked for validity, only made it worse what they did. Not only is it cliché to use this for a story during the French Revolution, there were much more serious problems at that time, even only 2 years into it, but what she wrote is wrong for several reasons:
1) The original statement actually says "brioche" and not cake. And considered that the authors used word like monsieur or cabriolet they should have used brioche as well and just weave the explanation into the story if they wanted to. You know brioche is not a cake; it is a highly enriched bread of French origin, whose high egg and butter content give it a rich and tender crumb. When most people think of cake that is not what they have in mind.
2) There is no record that this was ever said by Antoinette nor that any of the opponents of the monarchy ever stated this about her. It appeared in Rousseau's "Confessions" autobiography in 1765, when Antoinette was nine years old (and not even in France), so it apparently could not have been of her doing and probably did not refer to her. The phrase was of great symbolic importance for later pro-revolutionary historians however it was first attributed to her by Alphonse Karr in "Les Guepes" of March, 1843, so more than 50 years later. As far as I could find out Marie-Antoinette was a generous patroness of charity and moved by the plight of the poor when it was brought to her attention, thus making the statement out-of-character for her. Also she supposedly said this during a famine but there were no actual famines during the reign of King Louis XVI and only two incidents of serious bread shortages, which occurred, first, in April–May 1775, a few weeks before the king's, and again in 1788, the year before the French Revolution (to that later). Letters by Antoinette during 1775 suggest an attitude different to what is suggested by the famous "cake" statement. That this phrase was so to say put into her mouth by some discontented individuals is quite possible considered that in the years leading to the revolution she became increasingly unpopular due to her perceived frivolousness and very real extravagance (which were often cited as worsening France's dire financial straits). Also her Austrian birth and femininity were also a major factor in a country where xenophobia and chauvinism still played major parts in national politics. Many anti-monarchists were incorrectly convinced that it was Antoinette who had single-handedly ruined France's finances that their nicknamed her Madame Déficit. In addition, anti-royalists libellists printed stories and articles that attacked the royal family and their courtiers with exaggerations, fictitious events and outright lies. So yeah it could be possible that it was attributed to her at the time, albeit it was over the years also attributed to two of Louis XV's daughters, Madame Sophie and Madame Victoire, among others. But again there is no record whatsoever about it and the book does not reflect this at all. The book/Magnus question only the accusations about sexual frivolities, not about her attitudes in any way, and they do not mention the accusations about financial ruin. Had they treated this statement as rumor I would have said fine but they state it as fact and completely ignore everything else and that is possibly what bothers me most.
And while writing this I noticed: where is the xenophobia and chauvinism of late 18th century France? I already noticed how easily accepted Magnus was, but there is really no hints towards these other things, not at all. This seems rather like modern France in this way.
The book states that there would be periodic killings, fires and attacks, but references nothing to point towards any historical events. The book states that living in Paris was like living in a powder keg that was stacked on tops of several other power kegs, which were in a ship tossing blindly at sea. That might be true and yeah there was the Women's March on Versailles two years ago in October1789 but what did that statement refer to? As is obvious by the book, Magnus's "adventure" is the author's retelling of the Flight to Varennes in Jun1791 (it later states that the royal family was captured in that place) and that is the problem. The Champ de Mars Massacre was in July 1791 and the Reign of Terror did not start before 1793, so I have no idea what the authors are referring to, if they haven't made it up entirely. I think by now it should be clear that their statements are untrustworthy in regard to history.
In connection with the vampires of Paris the book mentions some sort of vampire craze in 1787 and missing children at the time when the also the so called blood parties started. Whether there were missing children during that year I have no idea, I could find nothing, however the book mentions two people called Henri and Brigitte who are stated to be among these children/young people and are said to be the nephew and niece of the Duke de Polignac. Now the title was originally created in 1780 and was not hereditary until 1783. In 1787 the Duke was Jules de Polignac, 1st Duke of Polignac a French nobleman and husband of Yolande de Polastron, the confidant of Queen Marie Antoinette. This already makes it weird to me that his supposed nephew and niece just disappeared without any investigations, but I do not know much about the then system of France. Now the duke was the fourth of five children so he could have had nephews and nieces. I found a Louis Héracle Armand de Polignac but that one was born in 1853. I also found a Camille Henri Melchior comte de Polignac born in 1871, but that one supposedly died in 1855, so I have no idea if there were ever a Henri and Brigitte who were related to the Duke de Polignac during that time and went missing. Maybe someone more knowledgeable in French history knows whether they existed but I found nothing. Just like I don't know whether the catacombs of Paris where accessible enough that it was extremely easy to snatch someone from the street and drag them below like the book claims.
Now let's come to the Women's March on Versailles which the book glosses over with the sentence The peasant women had broken into the palace of Versailles.
This is in my eyes a weird reference to this event. You would think someone living in Paris for 6 years would, two years after the Women's March on Versailles at least know, some numbers (it was a mob of thousands). Or someone using Wikipedia in the case of the authors. And "breaking in" isn't that exact either, the protesters discovered that a small gate to the palace was unguarded and thereby entered after having the palace under "siege". At that time several had already met with the king. And the authors don't even let Magnus mention that even during the march many demanded Antoinette's death and during the attack on the palace she barely escaped with her life. After the king fled the palace he was back only a day later. And while he lived in Tuileries Palace afterwards he and his family weren't exactly thrown out.
All of this was a huge event with thousands of people and even the march was not exclusively female. Among the many men was Stanislas-Marie Maillard, a popular figure among the market-women, and by unofficial acclamation was given a leadership role. Maillard helped suppress by force of character the mob's worst instincts and deputized a number of women as group leaders and gave a loose sense of order to the proceedings as he led the crowd out of the city in the driving rain. You would think Magnus would know that and think of it in more detail. And damn he doesn't even mention that the family wasn't just living there, they were kept under surveillance. No Von Fersen (yep Hans Axel von Fersen, when I read that name and heard he was from Sweden my worries were confirmed that Magnus would meet Marie) must say that they are prisoners, if that is true that is. How is that even possible?
Now you could say for these last few points that Magnus could not have known or not cared enough, but that is weird for someone supposedly known in the high society of Paris and over whom the book/Magnus claims that it was sensible to him that the people should demand and receive food, and firewood, and all the basic needs of life.
I find that pretty hard to believe all and that brings me directly to my next point.
2) They expect us to believe that?
Magnus described Paris to smell like cheese and fish. And then suddenly also like the smell of people. First this is bad writing since they suddenly throw it in. And the authors claim all of this smelled of life. Ok, to be fair, rot and the like is part of life, but what person thinks that dirt and rotting organic material, and all sorts of waste products, smells so much like life? We are humans and not cockroaches. Or are we to assume that this is Magnus' "demon heritage" coming through, the heritage which doesn't really seem to have any downsides so far.
Paris of 1791 is at first described as some sort of fashion center (before the author suddenly says "not", so to speak), so are we to assume that it was so fashionable for everyone? There are wigs high enough to the ceiling of wigs with boats in them? No idea of course whether that is accurate, especially since later in the novel the authors describe similar wigs for the vampires and call it out of fashion, but it doesn't matter either way. At first the authors only speak of those fashionable people and then suddenly they say the revolution put a damper in it and that the unwashed masses had taken over. So apparently it was not so great, but even when fashion was at its height only an idiot would think that this was how it was for the majority of the people.
And speaking of all the fashion: supposedly In Paris one could have the eyes of a cat (as he did) and tell people it was a trick of fashion. All these people belief it is a fashion trick? How? How is that possible back then? Today you can use contact lenses sure, but back then? I know of dildos among the ancient Greeks but of contact lenses in 18th century France? How does that work?
And that is not even the basic problem: According to Clare Magnus is "Asian", whatever that means since he is of mixed Dutch and Jakartan ancestry, but either way according to her he does not look European. And there comes into mind what I wrote above. Marie Antoinette was as pale as can be and she already had problems due to being born in Austria, Magnus was born in Jakarta (than Batavia according to the first book of the chronicles) and he is just accepted into high society? I am not making anything up, the book itself says so. They state that Magnus was a close friend with the owner of the Hotel de Soubise. I guess the authors mean Charles, Prince of Soubise (the book speaks of the Prince of Sourbise) who died in 1787 and was once very important but since 1763 lived a life of an ordinary courtier and man of fashion in Paris (which is probably why the authors chose him), which is weird because according to the book Magnus must have arrived in 1786, so how fast did they become friends? And wasn't there something in "What happened in Peru" about Magnus being a stranger everywhere? Not here apparently, here in this book he could walk into any number of great houses in Paris and be warmly greeted.
And it doesn't even stop there: Let's just assume that this is true, that people believe that his eyes are a fashion trick and that he is welcome in every house of the high society. Wouldn't people want to know how he achieves that trick with his eyes and want to copy it? Isn't fashion usually about extravagance, at least those wigs he talks about suggesting that, so wouldn't the people be curious? Wouldn't they want to know? Apparently not since nothing is mentioned here.
And if he is that welcome everywhere in high society and so well known why is no such person mentioned in the history books? The book itself suggests that he draws some attention and von Fersen himself heard of him, so why is it that there is no mentioning of him? And I am not even talking about the real world, there was never any mentioning of him in this fantasy universe as well. Someone that obvious (in the first book he was a wanted criminal in several countries) should be able to be found simply by using google.
And speaking of his looks: what about his glamour? Why is he not using that? Like I said there is the thing with his looks. Sure the authors didn't exactly write that he wasn't using it, however his glamour in regard to himself was only mentioned once near the end of the book when he was somewhere in the Alps and passing as some sort of noble French refugee. Apart from that he only used glamour on other people or objects but not him. Sure, again, the authors never outright say that he is not using it but these sentences strongly suggest it:
Magnus was rarely misidentified. Tall, golden-skinned, cat-eyed men were rare.
But this time when he looked at Magnus, his gaze stayed there for a moment, fixed on the catlike pupils.
This is worse than Jem in The Infernal Devices, at least he looked human. Magnus was in Paris for six years and no one has a problem with him being a warlock with cat eyes or at least not aging?
Oh yeah and apparently Magnus can find a lot of work because the aristocracy of Paris is into magic. And not just card or table tricks, nope its speaking monkeys, birds singing operas, diamonds glowing in different colors and chaise longues (an upholstered sofa in the shape of a chair that is long enough to support the legs) wandering across the room. And there is even more and apparently no one has any sort of problem with that, but for more on that see point 3.
The elder couple Magnus hired could not be surprised by anything because of all those years of living in Paris. Look above, they would not be surprised by that?
Magnus speaks "poor" Swedish, actually he can only say two sentences and one is for asking whether they have anything other than pickled fish (I am not gonna comment on that) and the other is "If you wrap me in furs, I can pretend to be your little fuzzy bear." Who in the late 18th century would talk like that? Especially in Sweden. Brown bears where still around in many European areas at the time and they only became "cute" after they became endangered and no longer regularly encountered.
Of course the weird stuff doesn't stop with Magnus. Let's go top Hans Axel von Fersen the Younger, which is strangely only referred to as Axel here. Either way this Axel was the one planning the flight of the royal family, which refers to the flight to Varennes, and he only wants the glamour for Marie Antoinette, not for the king, because supposedly the queen is more recognizable than the king because the king is not… a handsome man. Gazes do not linger on his face. What people recognize are his clothes, and carriage, all the external signs of his royal status. The people would not recognize the face of the king? You could say that this is just Axel but considered how often Clare let her characters (Clary, Tessa) mention beauty in similar fashion and with similar importance I think this sentence is rather typical for Clare and the shallowness many of her characters portray. Ok, maybe it is true that more people would have recognized the queen but before the flight he wasn't generally loved either. And even if, we are supposed to believe that people do not recognize the face of their king? No one would do that? No one? Because that is what Axel suggests. And the biggest smack in the face of this nonsense is that the flight to Varennes is so called because their flight only lasted until then, it failed because the king was recognized and that by a simple postmaster (and the whole family was disguised as bourgeoisie at the time). The book itself says so and we are supposed to belief that Axel was so stupid that he thought people would recognize the queen but not the king?
And speaking of the glamour for Marie: Magnus is in her room, stays in the shadows, tells her that she notices nothing and then performs her magic on her. Now she heard him of course, just looked around her room in confusion and returned to her pacing and Magnus applied the glamour. Now what was that? Did he use magic for that? Did she simply not care? That is a huge plothole because this woman had to take over state business because of her emotionally paralyzed husband, was threatened with death over the last year and when hearing a strange voice seemingly coming from nowhere she basically does nothing?
And when she gets captured by the vampires of Paris later on (where she acts like a blabbering idiot) these idiots believe Magnus's stupid story about her being a job by a costumer, who paid to have some women act and look like the queen. One even notices that she has a glamour on her and they have supersensitive hearing and none notices Magnus's sigh of relief (he only cared about them seeing it)? And later when Magnus is with the queen in a room alone she throws objects at him (finally) and none of the vampires hears that and comes to investigate? I mean the big bad vampire wanted her for himself and that in good condition, and a fight might damage what he sees as his new property. Are their senses down and is Magnus too "Asian" for them to read his face? Are they suffering from the other race effect and temporal deafness? And they let Magnus alone with the Queen? That Magnus? The guy who is totally whimsical?
This is typical Clare writing, not actually being able to visualize what you yourself created.
And we are supposed to believe that the queen was so dumb just to wander through Paris and get lost all by herself? Or Axel for that matter? The plan for the flight was for the queen to pose as the maid of the Marquise de Tourzel. No way would they have lost her.
And the head vampire Marcel Saint Cloud … he is supposedly such a big and badass vampire that not even Magnus, the king of mannerlessness (is that even a word?), does not risk anger him, but apparently not enough to truly hide his sarcasm of said vampire's underlings. But either way that vampire says We all have our weaknesses, and our weaknesses must be indulged if they are to flourish. What badass vampire talks that way? This way he might as well give his next best enemy a stake and let himself be killed or walk into the sun. And I mentioned the Duke of Polignac, well the vampire's underlings Henri and Brigitte are the Duke's nephew and niece and the Duke's wife is a confident of Marie Antoinette. This supposedly big bad vampire has a direct relative of someone that is so close to the queen of France and he never uses that? There is no mentioning of that whatsoever? Not even Magnus asking or speculating about it? These two highly valuable slaves are not used for something more?
And when Magnus mentions the name Axel to the Queen she suddenly calms down. Are we to assume that Axel did not tell the queen about Magnus' involvement? That she does not at least speculate who she is? Well no idea because the book doesn't explain this, again.
And that is not everything. Once they are in Magnus's glamoured balloon (it was made invisible), the queen touched the basket, her eyes wide with a childlike wonder. She drew herself up slowly and peered over the side of the basket, took one look at the view below, and fainted dead away.
WHAT????? Over the course of the last two years this woman was nearly killed, under surveillance, had to manage the state and had while standing on the balcony after the women's march in 1791 had muskets pointed in her direction and who knows what else. Now this woman faints because of that? And believe me she doesn't stay conscious the whole time afterwards either.
And the escape… Magnus can reach with his mind all over Paris, take possession of a rolled up balloon, roll it, make it inflate itself, glamour it invisible and guide it with his mind towards him, avoiding several buildings in the process but he cannot get himself and the queen out by any other method? A method like making a carpet fly and turning them invisible. There is no way that would require more energy than the balloon. And the book stated itself that he can do make carpet's fly and that he once flew while on the back of migratory birds. And there is no way the two and the carpet would have required more energy than getting that balloon to them and then keeping it invisible. And if there was no carpet, which I doubt since the "big bad" vampire had all sorts of stuff in his house, Magnus surely could have found something else to ride on, heck he could ride on the backs of birds and even the largest bird on earth would not be able to carry a full grown man. This is not simply hard to believe it is one giant plothole and to be honest all examples of point 1 and 2 could easily fit into the now coming point 3.
3) Plotholes over plotholes
Magnus was in Paris in 1791, the same year he was, according to the first book of the chronicles, in Peru for a job in the guano trade. The whole episode in this book refers to the Flight to Varennes, so it was around the 21thJune1791 and afterwards he was in the Alps for weeks. So he could not have left Europe before July. When was he in Peru? How did he get there so fast? A portal or what? Even the fastest ship would need weeks.
So Magnus has a cabriolet carriage (not that it's called a carriage, as usual the readers has to figure that out him/herself) and I looked that up. It is drawn by a horse, open at the front and has a driver in the back. Where is the driver? And the author writes that it was brutally hot inside his cabriolet, but how can that be if it is open at the front? Was it hot outside already. And would he even need a fan in that case, would it be of any use? Wouldn't the outside air be enough as long as the cabriolet is not too slow?
And speaking of that little fan:
So Magnus animated a Chinese fan for cooling… A cabriolet is open at the front, where is the fan placed to be hidden? Also the previous book stated how Magnus could do earthquakes and now he can only make a fan that can barely stir a breeze?
If he can make earthquakes according to book 1 of the chronicles why can he not change the weather and thereby have the ballooning he wanted?
As part of the magic he performs for the high society Magnus mentions stars appearing on their cheeks, heart shaped beauty-spots, flame shooting fountains and even speaking monkeys, birds singing operas, diamonds glowing in different colors and chaise longues (an upholstered sofa in the shape of a chair that is long enough to support the legs) wander across the room. And people think this is all just tricks? Or are they all that much into magic? If yes why is there not demand for more serious stuff? Like trying to stop the revolution.
He covers for rain in the cabriolet? These things are open at the front so what cover would they provide? Also on the previous page he cast a spell to make it that the rain rolled off an invisible canopy he had conjured just over his head. So what does he care about the rain? Did the spell wear off? Was it not sufficient? Doesn't he want to draw attention to being dry in this rain?
Of course Paris is a vampire terrain, but why are there no faeries? I get the lack of werewolves, somewhat, but in the Mortal Instruments ad Infernal Devices the faeries had no problem with New York City or London so why should they not reside in Paris here? If the high society of Paris has supposedly so many imaginative sexual tastes, why aren't they visited by faeries as well. I might get that no demons are in Paris because vampires keep them out, or maybe even the apparently useless Shadowhunters, but why are there no faeries?
And this time Magnus is golden-skinned, in other books it was yellow or brown and now golden.
And Axel was worth it. All the trouble this job brought Magnus. Based on what? We barely know the guy, he barely knows the guy and the ending doesn't suggest that Axel was worth it. And speaking of these two, why does Axel trust Magnus so much? He lets him go into the queen's chambers alone, with no one there. He barely knows the guy.
Magnus spent far more of the next day and evening worrying about Saint Cloud's party than about his business with the royal family. I guess this is supposed to mean that the vampires at the party are more dangerous. Maybe…
Why does Magnus only make a spark in a corner to distract the guard in front of the queen's chamber? When entering the building he used a glamour that made him appear like a large cat but here he only uses a spark? Why not make the guy fall asleep while standing?
Oh yeah the vampire party. Apparently there is a small army of underlings who scrap up the dripping candle wax. Wouldn't it be smarter to simply install some device under the candles so all the wax would be caught? If that would have even been necessary I might add, most chandeliers with wax candles already have such a thing around the candle holder and seriously I had used tons of candles in my live and usually the wax melds and vaporizes, there isn't much dripping down. Or are we to assume it was different back then?
How did the Queen get lost in the city if she was supposed to be with the Marquise? And if Magnus knows that Paris is full of vampires and it is blackest night, why did this idiot not cast a glamour that also works on vampires?
Why can the vampire Marcel Saint Cloud just raise a hand and silence the queen? Did he enchante her or something?
Not only is the queen unconscious most of the time during the balloon ride but when she finally wakes up the asks some stupid question and then puts her head back down, apparently being unconscious again because later Magnus has to wake her again, by prodding her with his foot. And once they crash land in the Seine and Magnus has to pull her out ("accidentally close" to the Tuileries where they started) surprise she is unconscious again. From what? Did she get no air anymore? Did she hit her head? You know what I know the reason: This way the authors don't have to deal with portraying her as an actual person. No idea whether it was consciously or unconsciously. And speaking of this, supposedly Magnus and Axel had agreed that Magnus was to send a blue flash into the sky should anything go wrong. Apart from the fact that this would surely attract unwanted attention, if they agreed on this why was Magnus out of the building and on the way to the vampire party directly after glamouring the queen? Did he lie? Did he not tell him that he couldn't be there all the time?
Was he supposed to shoot the spark out of the queen's chambers? What sort of stupid plan is this anyway?
Magnus was genuinely shocked when it was Axel who instigated the kiss—how sudden it was, how passionate, how all of Paris, and all the vampires, and the Seine and the balloon and everything fell away and it was just the two of them for one moment. One perfect moment.
Where did that come from? The two barely even talked. Is Axel so incredibly grateful? Does this 35 year old man suddenly has the hots for 19 year old looking Magnus?
And after all this Magnus is visited at his apartment by the vampire underling Henri who tells him should he decline this current invitation of Saint Clod Paris would be a very uncomfortable place for Magnus. Magnus says that he didn't want to offense anyone (yeah right) and that he accepts his punishment. What punishment? And since we are at it, why doesn't Saint Cloud send some vampire thugs to simply knock Magnus unconscious. They are strong and fast surely they could knock him down before he can use his magic.
Gosh, so many plotholes and so many clichés also. Well 3 down, 3 more points to go.
4) Can you really do nothing else but cliché?
So many clichés … I guess it's best if I just list them:
1) French aristocracy has special needs in terms of sex
2) French society was the most decadent Magnus had ever met
3) Magnus's friends are silly but mostly harmless. Typical for these Clare books, everyone not a main character is basically a moron.
4) Magnus has booked a balloon ride by the famous Mongolfier brothers
5) That this Henri de Polignac was somehow connected to vampires I guessed even before reading it and that is not good if a book is that predictable.
6) The worst thing about Henri is that he is boring in Magnus's eyes… Why don't the authors just outright say that Magnus is a hedonist? They would save a lot of time with that.
7) Henri only calls his vampire master "Master"? What is he, some cliché Igor?
8) Bothering Magnus is of course sooo bad. How is it possible to write such an unlikeable character and at the same time thinking that he is nice?
9) When starting this book I knew there would either be an attractive blond man, an attractive redhead woman or (which I considered most likely) an attractive man with black hair and blue eyes and look how right I was. And the guy even wears expensive clothes of obviously fine quality. And look how happy Magnus is, that now the universe gave him this after sending Henri to him and denying him his balloon ride. And of course this noble man is different, most nobles Magnus met had the absentminded air of people who had never had to take care of any matters of importance. Are these authors choosing to write only in stereotype or can they really not do any different?
10) Marie Antoinette and Hans Axel Graf (Count) von Fersen appear in this novel and interact with Magnus and at least Axel has the hots for the queen. Never mind that all we have of their alleged romance are rumors and that it is impossible to verify and maybe even highly unlike because the queen was rarely ever alone anywhere.
11) Saint Cloud was old, possibly one of Vlad's very first vampire court. The guy knew Vlad Tepez? The Dracula is a vampire here also. *rolleyes*
12) The Marquis de Sade was at the vampire party shortly before Magnus arrived.
13) The queen wanders off, gets lost and captured by the vampires.
14) Saint Cloud is a very attractive vampire.
So many clichés both by the standards of YA and especially Cassandra Clare. Of course the biggest is once again Magnus, well you got a few glimpses of him in the above sections but now it's time to take a look at him.
5) Magnus always Magnus
In theory much in this section could also be among the plotholes because they often downright make no sense. Unless I invent stuff and fill them and I refuse to do that. That is the author's job and not mine.
Magnus still mostly cares about how he looks, or more precise what he wears. He downright states that when you look as fabulous as him you have to wear everything or nothing at all. I am not making that up the author really wrote that. I have no problem with stuff like Noblesse oblige, so noble ancestry constrains to honorable behavior; privilege entails to responsibility and so on but this here is ridiculous.
And I really wonder what Magnus considers to be friendship. Because his friends apparently allow him a lot (using their kitchen staff and foods) when he needs it, but what does he do for them? And before the revolution he was and supposedly is friends with all the high society, but now its problematic to be seen in their company. What friend talks that way?
It really was getting difficult to be wonderful.
This is what Magnus thinks when he walks through the Bois de Boulogne where people grow potatoes for food. All this in 1791, two years after the Woman's March of Versailles which had among its causes the fact that famine was a real and ever-present dread for the lower strata of the Third Estate, and rumors of an "aristocrats' plot" to starve the poor were rampant and readily believed. But of course he always felt for the poor and the wretched. So far there is no mentioning that he ever even lifted a finger to help them. Sure he wanted to help that one enslaved harpist at the vampire party and supposedly cared whether the two people working for him were hurt. But he did nothing at all in either case, like I said nothing to help anybody if there was nothing directly in for him. He doesn't seem to do anything about the situation in Paris in general, doesn't even notify/help the Shadowhunters fighting the vampires.
If at all he seems to be annoyed by the commoners. He apparently would never sacrifice his high society life for them despite how much he "feels" for them. He doesn't seem to feel enough for them to endure the smell, nope Magnus rather smells at a jasmine-scented cloth. And if he loves the Paris air so much why did he have to cover his nose with a jasmine-scented cloth only two pages before?
And during that time all he looks for in the park are lovebirds, he seems rather annoyed that people are more interested in the revolution. Talk about priorities. I already wrote that Paris was suddenly like a powder keg. Well Magnus's behavior certainly doesn't reflect that. Not even remotely.
Magnus was able to rest on a flying flock of migratory birds and fly on carpets but he is afraid of ballooning?
Of course the balloon is not fanciful enough for Magnus. He actually has better clothes than the balloon. Wasn't it supposedly the thrill of flying that sparked Magnus' interest? And wasn't he a bit scared? Shouldn't he be more interesting in how sturdy the balloon is then instead of its colors?
The authors literally state that there was nothing Magnus attached more importance to than a whim. What? And this guy tries to have stable relationships?
Ok so Magnus says himself that you should not turn down an invitation from a "Parisian vampire" but at the same time he peels one of his gloves from his hand simply for having something to do? Shouldn't the fact that he has to deal with such vampires affect him with a bit more than pure boredom?
He knew his shoes were unsuitable for a walk in the park, which he knew he would do, but he wore them anyway because they were new and pretty and by Jacques of the rue des Balais and could not be resisted. Ok I know Magnus is about fashion but this is ridiculous. This way his fashion will be ruined in an instant, is he that mercurial?
He considers leaving Paris for some other location because of the problematic situation with the revolution and considers several and suddenly he says Perhaps it was best to stay in Paris.
What is this? Are the authors writing that on purpose or are they simply that incompetent regarding characterization?
1-2 hours to dress for opera? Is the dress so complicated that magic is not enough or does he need so long to decide? Why does he care so much for a wardrobe?
The good of Paris is in Magnus's eyes all the buildings and material objects? Because if there is more it's not mentioned anywhere.
It is annoying that professional appearances must be kept… it was annoying to see Henri, it was annoying apparently to talk about the vampires of Paris, it was annoying that people judged him for his dress, it was annoying that it wasn't sunny… is there anything on this earth that doesn't annoy him?
Calling his magic power a conjuring trick is an insult in Magnus's eyes, but a few pages before he had no problem in people believing his eyes were a fashion trick. And calling his powers marvel of course is good in Magnus's ears.
Magnus speaks poor Swedish… being able to speak only two sentences is not "poor Swedish" it is "not knowing the language."
No one has harmed the royal family? Well I guess being threatened like in the Woman's March on Versailles doesn't count as "harmed" in the author's eyes. Which are Magnus's eyes of course.
Of course Magnus wastes precious time to examine the queen's looks, never mind that she is in danger and he has more than one event to attend that day. By the way he of course examines Saint Cloud's beauty as well.
And apparently if someone kisses Saint Cloud's ass they are sycophants but according to book 1 of the chronicles if someone does it with Marcus that one is his favorite friend. Also this book claims that Magnus tends to buy his furniture. Oh really… in City of Bones he stated that the table and coffee were technically stolen.
He spent the night at the petite maison of Madame de ——, one of his more recent lovers.
He cannot even remember her name? How many does he have on average?
Von Fersen' flushed cheeks made Magnus's heart flutter a bit. Of course his looks make Magnus accept, what else should be important right? As typical for a book by Clare there is detailed description of Von Fersen's looks and how beautiful he is. Later on the book downright states in his mind now there was only von Fersen. And he rushes into danger head on because of it. Talk about being controlled by your cock. And speaking of Von Fersen: shouldn't he be a bit more controlled? And why is Magnus so sure of flirting with Axel? This is 1791 not 1991. And although he hears Axel talking so much about the queen's beauty Magnus simply wants to move away from the subject. Yeah of course he wouldn't be reminded that he has no chance or maybe the authors want to show how "deep" Magnus is. Not that Magnus doesn't get what he wants. I mean later Axel suddenly kisses him in front of the carriage with the royal family. I guess we are supposed to believe that Magnus is so smitten by Axel and vice versa. The authors don't seem to stop to show us how smitten Magnus is. Maybe I would believe that if Magnus had not refused to help Axel later when Axel's sister asked him for it and stated that she thinks Axel's life is at risk.
The reason Magnus burned the note/letter from Axel's sister was:
Axel would return to Paris. Of that, Magnus was sure.
Vampires, fey folk, werewolves, Shadowhunters, and demons—these things made sense to Magnus. But the mundane world—it seemed to have no pattern, no form. Their quicksilver politics. Their short lives . . .
And you know what? This is the end:
Magnus thought once again of the blueeyed man standing in his parlor. Then he lit a match and burned the note.
This is how he treats people he has the hots for? This is how he treats people whom he likes? He refuses to help because he cannot deal with "mundane politics?" Asshole, plain and simple, asshole. I wish in her next book in TMI Clare would kill him but sadly I don't think so. Based on her Bane Chronicles so far I am pretty sure she will let him be with Alec again.
And I will tell you why I think this. Believe me so far I analyzed nothing, I simply noticed, now I will analyze.
6) Why don't you just say so outright?
The writing style of saying this is how it is and then no its not is useless. They could have shortened that significantly and no information would have been lost.
But the main point is that the authors, and especially Clare, do not have to point out in all those non TMI series that Magnus's favorite traits are black hair and blue eyes. We get it; Alec is supposed to be perfect for him. And although I personally think that Alec should get rid of Magnus once and for all I think currently Clare plans to have both be together again. You know in this little book the scene of Axel kissing Magnus in front of other is very reminiscent of Alec kissing Magnus in City of Glass.
There is also the topic of Von Fersen's look. Now I do not know whether he chose his looks or chose him because of it, but either way the message of favorite physical traits are clear.
And in case people are wondering why I said "chose his looks" there is something you might not know. There is no real consistency on how Von Fersen looked. The descriptions of his eyes vary from hazel, to green, blue or even dark brown. His hair is similarly disputed, while it is said that he used to dye it black some believe that it was naturally light brown or dark blond.
But of course once again the message is the same: Magnus prefers black hair and blue eyes.
And while it is not necessary for my statement I found this curious typo:
"The escape is to be made on Sunday," Alex went on.
This should mean "Axel", as was evident by the other sentences around it. While mistyping Axel to Alex is maybe not that farfetched it is interesting since Alex is a common short form for Alexander which is Alec's full name from the Mortal Instruments. Of course I cannot speak for the keyboard of the authors but on mine x and c are very close together, so I do wonder whether someone didn't want to, unconsciously probably, type "Alec." And perhaps the authors chose to refer to von Fersen as Axel instead of Hans because of this, again, annoying reference to Alec.
Why do they even bother with it? Just get some fortune teller who tells Magnus that his "big love" will have these traits. And maybe even give some details so he can recognize him. At least that would be an explanation for his mercurial dating/relationship habits.
PAINT WITH LOVE - SHOW REVIEW
Paint With Love is one of those shows that didn't get much attention apart for staring Singto in it, and that is something that I think is undeserved. The show has a very solid story about two very different characters, business man Maz and chaotic painter Phab, clashing with each other and ultimately being drawn to each other. Of course, and not just with these two but so many other characters in it, the main theme of the show is also "miscommunication", gosh there were sooooo many problems between the characters that simply could have been avoided if they managed to communicate directly what is up with them, especially Maz is someone very guilty of that accusation. I found the show very enjoyable and very adult. I was also surprised that it had a bit of a comedic critic of the going-ons behind the BL industry, albeit nothing too serious. If you want to watch the show, it can be found on Gagaoolala, with the first episode being available for
Book Review - Hitler's American Model
Hitler's American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law If you read this book and are fiercely pro-American than you might get pretty enraged. If you are anti-American, this will be a feast. Based on the title you would be correct to assume that it deals with segregation in the US South, however, that is only a small part of it. The book is a short study on the interest the makers of the Nuremberg Laws had in and what inspiration they took from the US Race laws. Fun fact, based on the author this fact is actually known for a time by now but having constantly been downplayed because the American race laws did not deal with Jews, however I agree with the author that this is a bad line of reasoning because by that line “inspiration” would only be there if direct copying was involved but inspiration usually is not meant to mean that, in fact in art such copying would be considered plagiarizing. However, the facts are pretty strong when it comes to the claim that not
Book-Review: The People's Republic of Amnesia
Link: The People's Republic of Amnesia: Tiananmen Revisited by Louisa Lim | Goodreads There is an interesting allegory for Chinese politics. It is like the air in northern China. "If you can't breathe, you'll die. If you breathe, you'll be infected by these viruses. The air is so polluted, but who can't breathe?" I can definitely recommend this book to anyone wanting to know about the uprisings in 1989 China. Of course it begins with the Tiananmen square and its history (like its original Manchu name meaning "Gate of Heaven's pacification"), and goes to the most prominent military dissenter at the time, Xu Qinxian, and according to a classified speech 21 officers at division level command or higher and 90 others of lesser rank had "breached discipline in a serious manner". Leadership was suddenly reshuffled, and ammunition taken away from soldiers after the square had been cleared. The CCP seems to have been paranoid about troop loyalty, mutiny and armed uprising. What is said about
Don't expect any new deviations anytime soon
I have not been as active on DA as I had planned due to so many other things going on. However I had plans to do it now, but as faith would have it, something came up and that something was a fire three levels below mine and now the stairs are nearly black and my apartment literally stinks.
So I will have to lookup for a new one and will be very busy.
© 2013 - 2024 Asanbonsam
Comments2
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
She is a glkrofied fanfic writer, in fact I think she's fairly legendary for coming up with a epic Harry Potter story with Draco as the hero, which as it turns out was heavily plagarized, and then she self-plagarized some of her "original" fiction.