Behind the Magic: Books vs. Show

[grandemocha]

So I know that 

Alice dies in the books saving everyone from The Beast (I think?)

but do she and Quentin ever get back together or is the cheating incident the end of their relationship?

[Lemur]

I do recall that and what I'm talking about is that by revealing the abuse of Martin first -- because in the books it is one of the last things revealed -- it's going to make it seem that selling his soul was a response to Plover's abuse.  By doing things in the opposite order it makes it seem as if Martin sold his soul in a response to being sexually abused.  

 

Admittedly, the very offhand and incredibly unpleasant revelation in the book was also kind of bridge too far for a lot of people because it did seem to imply things about C. S. Lewis that were really unnecessary.   The one thing the show did right in that story was to make it very clear that Plover is not a Lewis stand in.  However, by having a large portion of an episode delve into Martin's abuse it makes him hugely sympathetic...and stands in weird contrast to the actions of The Beast who is making people blow their brains out , tormenting Penny, etc. in the very next episode.  

 

It was kind of a jarring inclusion in the first book, but the story had already made it fairly clear that Martin was likely rejected by Fillory for being Martin, not a loss of innocence or as a result of the abuse.  The TV episode was the one over-simplifying the story by slamming that entire story into about two minutes of screen-time total for Martin, making it seem they were closely related things.  I never got that impression from the books.  

It's possible they've still got some more work to do on that, but it's the treatment of the show I'm taking issue with for being too blunt and drawing too direct a line.   Martin is seen crying and wondering why Fillory will not let him in and in the same episode, he's abused by Plover, which reallys suggested that Fillory was rejecting Martin because he had been sexually abused.  

 

 

But, we know Martin is the Beast, and they've thrown enough misdirection to make Plover a believable Beast.  It is entirely possible that there's more to come on this story still, which I hope, as they've barely touched on Rupert's role in all of it other than that quick mention in the beginning.  (As for the book, I'm not overly tied to C.S. Lewis - hell, I've never even read the Narnia books or seen more than half the movie - so it didn't come as a bridge too far for me.  Rather, perfectly logical in a screwed up, too many years of Catholic school kind of way.)

So I know that 

Alice dies in the books saving everyone from The Beast (I think?)

but do she and Quentin ever get back together or is the cheating incident the end of their relationship?

 

How would you like me to answer this?  Would you like a totally spoiling all the books and the potentially the tv show, a potentially spoiling the first book and the tv show?  Or a one word answer?

[grandemocha]

 

How would you like me to answer this?  Would you like a totally spoiling all the books and the potentially the tv show, a potentially spoiling the first book and the tv show?  Or a one word answer?

I have no problem with total spoilers :) so go ahead please! I'll still enjoy the hell out of the show anyway :)

[stillshimpy]

grandamocha,  really Big Book three

Alice is turned into a Niffin when she stops The Beast.  Quentin builds an entire world to bring her back.  Very long story, but he does bring her back and whereas they do sort of get back together, their future is left open-ended.  Alice's time as a Niffin takes a toll and she's initially furious with Quentin for bringing her back.  It's a good story, I thought.  

 

Lemur, I am definitely pulling a wait-and-see with what the show has done.  They are changing some things, I'm just a little worried about what the show, I think unintentionally, implied.  

 

As for your not being attached to Lewis, a lot of people are and to the Narnia chronicles and Grossman borrowed a LOT from Lewis's work, so it seemed ungrateful as well as unwarranted.  Somewhere here put it best by say that Fillory is just Narnia with the serial numbers filed off and truly, it is.  

Edited April 5, 2016 by stillshimpy

[Jael]

Well, now I don't know what to think. (Just watched Thirty-Nine Graves.) The "Our Lady" storyline of Julia and her friends ends with... the goddess showing up and giving everyone what they want? That is certainly different! Not sure if we're supposed to doubt it or take it at face value. Probably comes across very different to those who haven't read Book 2.

 

I think I like it. I think I like how they've folded Julia back into the main storyline, so she'll be there in Fillory with the others. Still processing. And I was not looking forward to the bloodbath and rape with the trickster god, so yay? But I do wonder if they'll still work it in somehow, since the Knife That Can Kill a God is a thing in the show.

 

Now I'm wondering if the Fillory confrontation will also be very different, with not the same lineup of deaths and, y'know, maybe less eating people's hands off.

 

Also: JOSH! Welcome to the party, dude!

[grandemocha]

Ooh, thanks for the spoiler stillshimpy :) I wonder how that will translate itself to the show, based on the quick shot of Alice in the promo 

bleeding from her nose, it looks like she's seriously injured

but I believe Olivia Dudley is a series regular, so I'm curious to see if anything will change. 

 

Oh, one more thing: Penny is supposed to

lose one of his arms

, right? during/after the confrontation with The Beast? I wonder if they'll still do that since it would presumably

be expensive to CGI it out in every shot

during Season 2.

Edited April 5, 2016 by grandemocha

[Jael]

Oh, one more thing: Penny is supposed to

lose one of his arms

, right? during/after the confrontation with The Beast?

 

Penny loses

both hands. Eventually he has them replaced with golden ones, maybe not til Book 3?

But I assume that's how they'd deal with it, if they go that route.

[Arutha2321]

I LOVED, LOVED, LOVED how the librarian called Margo Janet. Great shout-out. :)

[Lemur]

Penny loses

both hands. Eventually he has them replaced with golden ones, maybe not til Book 3?

But I assume that's how they'd deal with it, if they go that route.

 

Based entirely on a throw away line from the Librarian, I think this may actually happen.  She says to Penny, "you'll get a handle on it eventually" when talking about traveling.  I know, probably means nothing.  

[Lemur]

As for your not being attached to Lewis, a lot of people are and to the Narnia chronicles and Grossman borrowed a LOT from Lewis's work, so it seemed ungrateful as well as unwarranted.  Somewhere here put it best by say that Fillory is just Narnia with the serial numbers filed off and truly, it is.

And I don't agree with your last statement.  It's clear that Grossman borrowed elements of it, but to say it's Narnia with the serial numbers filed off is missing out on the main feature of the Narnia books and what made them most interesting (at least academically) - Grossman didn't weigh his story down with heavy-handed Christian allegory.  He may have borrowed the archetype or the blue prints, but it's missing some rather heavy thematic elements.  

[stillshimpy]

And I don't agree with your last statement.

 

I was quoting someone else on it, but since you haven't read the books, I'm not sure you realize this: The second book is very broadly borrowed for The Voyage of the Dawn Treader.   Also, book three leans very heavily on The Last Battle.  Like....a lot, a lot.  A lot.  Still more than a lot.  Also, the Neitherworlds is straight out of the Magicians Nephew -- and so is the setup of Plover.  I actually don't take issue with Grossman's retelling of a Narnia-inspired world, but C. S. Lewis wasn't a pedophile and since Plover is literally living in an English country house with the children visiting the setup is exactly like the Pevensies it really cut way too close to the bone.   Sure, be inspired by the guy's work, that's fine, but they changed Plover's depiction in the show, probably because Grossman has been fielding that "what the hell, dude, was that really necessary?!?" question since the books came out.  

 

Also, I'm sorry about misspelling your name, Lemur, I was running out almost as soon as I hit send on that, and didn't catch it until just now.  I'll fix it.  Oops.  

 

Also: JOSH! Welcome to the party, dude!

 

That was entirely awesome, although they took Josh in a far less Jock-stereotype than I'd always envisioned him, but I love, love, love how they made use of some of Josh's adventures in the Neitherworlds almost immediately.  

 

Just like I didn't spot that Asmos was Kady, it never occurred to me that Josh would be brought into the story via the missing class.  Good use of his character, I thought, considering he did so little in the books until he pops up again in Book Three.  

Edited April 5, 2016 by stillshimpy

[Hanahope]

So, I don't recall her last name was ever said in the show, but I was looking at the Magicians on IMDB and they list Kady Orloff-Diaz.  So now I wonder if her character is also going to suffer the fate of Amanda Orloff from the book, though obviously in a different scene.

[stillshimpy]

but I was looking at the Magicians on IMDB and they list Kady Orloff-Diaz.  So now I wonder if her character is also going to suffer the fate of Amanda Orloff from the book, though obviously in a different scene.

 

Uh oh.  Well that's disheartening.  I like Kady.  

[Lemur]

I was quoting someone else on it, but since you haven't read the books, I'm not sure you realize this: The second book is very broadly borrowed for The Voyage of the Dawn Treader.   Also, book three leans very heavily on The Last Battle.  Like....a lot, a lot.  A lot.  Still more than a lot.  Also, the Neitherworlds is straight out of the Magicians Nephew -- and so is the setup of Plover.  I actually don't take issue with Grossman's retelling of a Narnia-inspired world, but C. S. Lewis wasn't a pedophile and since Plover is literally living in an English country house with the children visiting the setup is exactly like the Pevensies it really cut way too close to the bone.   Sure, be inspired by the guy's work, that's fine, but they changed Plover's depiction in the show, probably because Grossman has been fielding that "what the hell, dude, was that really necessary?!?" question since the books came out.  

 

Also, I'm sorry about misspelling your name, Lemur, I was running out almost as soon as I hit send on that, and didn't catch it until just now.  I'll fix it.  Oops.  

 

No worries about the name.  And yes, I'm aware that Grossman borrows very heavily - structurally - from Lewis.  Thematically, however, he's more in-line with Pullman. I would also like to point out that they've actually made Plover even closer to Lewis in the show than he was in the books.  In the books he was an American dry goods magnate who moved to England because he was a total Anglophile and in fact had no idea how to be a proper Englishman.  There was no sister or housekeeper.  There were no murdered kids.  And the pedophilia is only hinted at, it's never explicitly stated.  Jane says that Plover was probably buggering Martin (why else would he be trying to crawl into the clock case?) and Rupert says that Martin told him never to go over there alone (but oddly enough, says that the crawling into the clock case thing was more of a way for Martin to try to trap him in there and bully him, ala stuffing him in a locker).  But there were no photos, etc.  I think if you're going to get worked up over the disservice to Lewis, your ire should be aimed at SyFy and the producers and not so much Grossman.  

[Lemur]

So, I don't recall her last name was ever said in the show, but I was looking at the Magicians on IMDB and they list Kady Orloff-Diaz.  So now I wonder if her character is also going to suffer the fate of Amanda Orloff from the book, though obviously in a different scene.

 

No necessarily.  She's listed for 10 episodes, they don't have the episodes listed for next season yet for any of the characters.  She took a couple of episodes off after Brakebills South.  I think they just recycled the name.  Or I'm hoping.  Or they didn't and they're going to completely ignore the first part of Book 3 and I'm going to be angry.  Interesting to note that she doesn't have any roles lined up after this one.

[stillshimpy]

No worries about the name.  And yes, I'm aware that Grossman borrows very heavily - structurally - from Lewis.  Thematically, however, he's more in-line with Pullman. I would also like to point out that they've actually made Plover even closer to Lewis in the show than he was in the books.  In the books he was an American dry goods magnate who moved to England because he was a total Anglophile and in fact had no idea how to be a proper Englishman.  There was no sister or housekeeper.

 

In the books Jane says Plover was "diddling" him and there wasn't any probably, unfortunately.  Here's the quote: 

 

"Try not to judge Martin too harshly," she said from the doorway. "Plover used to diddle him whenever he could get him alone.  I think that's why went to Fillory in the first place.  Why else would he try to ccrawl into a grandfather clock? He was looking for somewhere to hide."  

 

Actually, the show went out of their way to incorporate at least one other children's author and to take a scattershot approach to implying anything and it incorporated  Lewis Carroll , who had a thing about taking photographs of nearly naked children....which is a long and very strange story unto itself.  Then also they sort of even roped in Stanway House without evoking anything else about Barrie.  

 

 

 

No worries about the name.  And yes, I'm aware that Grossman borrows very heavily - structurally - from Lewis.  Thematically, however, he's more in-line with Pullman. I would also like to point out that they've actually made Plover even closer to Lewis in the show than he was in the books.  In the books he was an American dry goods magnate who moved to England because he was a total Anglophile and in fact had no idea how to be a proper Englishman.  

 

In the books, Plover is the author of the Fillory series, and Fillory is based on Narnia.  So it was actually the book that drew the more direct line.  The show took some pains, it seemed, to deflect away from that by having Plover be nothing at all like Lewis.  

 

C. S. Lewis really did use a lot of Christian themes and I remember being really king of wigged out by how many of them he used in the Narnia Chronicles.  I am willing to bet he would have disapproved of much about me, not the least of which is that I'm agnostic, but other than absolutely writing message-laden-fiction, unlike someone like Lewis Carroll there was never any whiff of being a pedophile in C. S. Lewis's life.   I don't think Grossman meant to rope in C. S. Lewis that much, but he made Plover the author of the Fillory books and then stuck Plover in a setup that was very similar to the Pevensies.  Hell, the Chatwins are very similar to the Pevensies.  

 

But I do think Grossman just wasn't thinking it through and that the line he drew was unintentional.  

 

ETA:  Yeah, there's actually no question here.  I just went back and watched the scene.  He tells Julia how many times she was supposed to be at Brakebills.  25:30 in the playtime.  Start from there.  

 

You just missed dialogue in that scene. 

Edited April 5, 2016 by stillshimpy

[Lemur]

In the books, Plover is the author of the Fillory series, and Fillory is based on Narnia.  So it was actually the book that drew the more direct line.  The show took some pains, it seemed, to deflect away from that by having Plover be nothing at all like Lewis.  

 

C. S. Lewis really did use a lot of Christian themes and I remember being really king of wigged out by how many of them he used in the Narnia Chronicles.  I am willing to bet he would have disapproved of much about me, not the least of which is that I'm agnostic, but other than absolutely writing message-laden-fiction, unlike someone like Lewis Carroll there was never any whiff of being a pedophile in C. S. Lewis's life.   I don't think Grossman meant to rope in C. S. Lewis that much, but he made Plover the author of the Fillory books and then stuck Plover in a setup that was very similar to the Pevensies.  Hell, the Chatwins are very similar to the Pevensies.  

 

But I do think Grossman just wasn't thinking it through and that the line he drew was unintentional.  

 

ETA:  Yeah, there's actually no question here.  I just went back and watched the scene.  He tells Julia how many times she was supposed to be at Brakebills.  25:30 in the playtime.  Start from there.  

 

You just missed dialogue in that scene. 

 

No, I didn't miss the dialogue.  Unless Dean Fogg said "I booted your friend out because Eliza told me to, she was supposed to be here too", I remain unconvinced.  And again, disagree.

 

I think by making Plover an American though an Anglophile I believe it separates him from Lewis. Grossman knew just how close he was coming to Narnia - he's a fan:

 

"Q:   What steps did you take to make your book a riff off of the worlds of Harry Potter/Narnia and not a carbon copy?

 

A: Many many tiny steps. I wanted to allude to the books, but not copy or even directly satirize them. (I didn’t want The Magicians to be just a parody.) I wanted to tell the same kind of story as those books, the story of a young man who discovers his own power, and who finds a secret world, but tell it in my own way.

 

So there were a couple of moments when I wanted to ‘announce’ that my rules were fundamentally different from Rowling’s or Lewis’s. Like when Quentin walks in on Eliot going down on another student. Or when they go to Fillory and meet a talking bear, and the talking bear turns out to be drunk and kind of a bore. My hope was that those moments would force readers to really feel that they were in a different kind of book from Harry Potter/Narnia.  A lot of the revision process was getting the distance just right between my book and those other books. Or trying to. I may have sailed a little close to the wind with welters."

 

http://dontmindthemess.com/reading-list/author-qa-lev-grossman/

Edited April 5, 2016 by Lemur

[stillshimpy]

And again, disagree.

 

On the meaning of words, apparently.  He literally tells Julia what "they" did and how many times she went to Brakebills.  We're not in disagreement, you're just setting a level of proof that you aren't applying to any other material in the show.  

 

If you won't believe Quentin telling Julia that, why believe what Fogg said about Jane?   She's not present when Quentin learns about what Jane did, according to Fogg.  We learned what "they" did to Julia via Quentin. 

 

I will move on , but it is under protest in this instance. 

 

ETA:

 

My hope was that those moments would force readers to really feel that they were in a different kind of book from Harry Potter/Narnia.  A lot of the revision process was getting the distance just right between my book and those other books. Or trying to. I may have sailed a little close to the wind with welters."

 

In fairness to Grossman, he really did make a world that was reminiscent, but clearly an adult world, with adult problems and actions.  So I've never thought he just wrote Narnia fan-fiction or anything.  I do think he "sailed a little close to the wind" with material from the other books.  Welters is like Quidditch, but the ship in The Magician King is like that with Dawn Treader. 

 

So the TV series makes it pretty clear that he wasn't taking a stab at Lewis, but why do you think they added in things like the sister and the photographing, as well as missing children in the series? Just to add visual details?  

 

I think by making Plover an American though an Anglophile I believe it separates him from Lewis. Grossman knew just how close he was coming to Narnia - he's a fan:

 

It's possible that was his intention.  I think the TV series expanded on that to make it super clear and that that was warranted.  

Edited April 5, 2016 by stillshimpy

[Meredith Quill]

Mod Note:
 
Happy to see that we're agreeing to disagree no matter how grudgingly. Let's leave it at that now please while it's still civil.
 
Onwards and upwards as they say.
 
Thanks!

[stillshimpy]

I take issue with that!!!  [/kidding] 

 

I'm sure I'll find something else to take issue with shortly though.  Having met me.  

[shortpplfedup]

So Richard is Renard the Fox right? This theory has been burning up my brain. He's somehow a fallen god trying to regain godhood, and he's used Julia to do it.

[Lemur]

So Richard is Renard the Fox right? This theory has been burning up my brain. He's somehow a fallen god trying to regain godhood, and he's used Julia to do it.

 

Richard, in the book, was Janet/Margo's post graduate paramore and noted for being a Christian.  He was at the infamous dinner party where Quentin found himself in a drunken threesome and went to Fillory with them.  His two great contributions, one of which the show has taken up, was a philosophical discussion on the nature of magic (the Maker's tools), as well as acknowledging the existence of the Wizard Court. Reynard was just ... Reynard.

[stillshimpy]

So Richard is Renard the Fox right? This theory has been burning up my brain. He's somehow a fallen god trying to regain godhood, and he's used Julia to do it.

 

Whoa.  That didn't even occur to me, I wonder if you're right?  I haven't been able to match Richard's character to any of the Free Traders.  He's not really very Pouncy like.  

 

Book three

the god killing knife made the scene already with no Asmos snatching it to avenge her murdered and violated friends.  Go Asmos!

 

That's a really interesting take on that and it would also take care of the hugely problematic Julia-rape scene, by having it be consensual but uninformed (for Julia) sex.  

I hope you're right.  

 

Richard, in the book, was Janet/Margo's post graduate paramore and noted for being a Christian.  He was at the infamous dinner party where Quentin found himself in a drunken threesome and went to Fillory with them.

 

Right, but they may be making a composite character and having him serve multiple purposes.  

Edited April 6, 2016 by stillshimpy

[Lemur]

Right, but they may be making a composite character and having him serve multiple purposes.  

 

And we're in the "Book vs. Show Forum".

 

I agree it's an interesting use as well as a way to introduce the whole concept of the Maker's Tools.  I also hadn't thought about him being Reynard.  Interesting take on it.

[stillshimpy]

And we're in the "Book vs. Show Forum".

 

And it is Wednesday.   In April.  

 

Seemed the appropriate place to say they may be making a composite character out of Richard and Reynard, date having no bearing either way.  

 

Of course, I suppose it is equally possible that Richard is a composite of Book Richard and Book Pouncy, I suppose.  

 

I guess part of the reason I like the idea of Show Richard being a composite character between Richard and Reynard is Show Richard's plan just strikes me as being a monumentally bad idea.   Show Richard said something about taking his son somewhere, didn't he?  Like he would hide out with him for eight years.   

 

His plan just seemed so "Hi! Let's enact the chaos theory, shall we?? Today's lesson: altering the timeline! How can it go wrong?"  

 

Admittedly, the whole "but if he ever succeeded, wouldn't hidden Richard have already jumped back and...." cue migraines and Doctor Who talking about Timey-wimey things. 

Edited April 6, 2016 by stillshimpy

[carrps]

O.k. I'm still watching because my sister hasn't read the books yet, and she's hooked.

 

But last night she was complaining about Eliot's character. I don't like the way they've changed him in the show. And it hit me -- with all his whining and moping over Mike (who didn't exist in the books), they're taking some of Q's less attractive personality traits from the book and giving them to TV-Eliot. To make Q more of the "hero?"

 

It kinda reads that way to me, because my sister likes Q a lot more than I liked book-Q (especially after Book 1) and dislikes Eliot almost as much as I disliked book-Q. 

 

And Alice is just all wrong for me.

 

It's interesting that the Free Traders actually invoked OLU and got their wishes, but it seemed too easy somehow. I really didn't want to see the rape scene, but this was not what I wanted to see either. Hrmphf.

 

 

Just me?

[shortpplfedup]

And carrps, that sense of a dropped plot (what mission is Kady on? Where did Richard go? Why so mum on both?) is really driving my Richard/Reynard theory. Either that plotline was a total fizzle (oh it was all happy sunshine ending for Julia), or it didn't go down how Julia said, or it's not over. Richard is the one who brought this god stuff to Julia in the first place, and has been the person pushing her on it. He knows a LOT about gods and god magic, which is a bit suspicious. He hasn't been specific about what his 'request' to Murs would be, and Julia didn't ask too many questions after the 'dead son' story. If Richard is Reynard, depowered by lack of faith, then using Murs somehow to regain god powers is a cool twist. But no matter what, if that story just ends right there, it's been a total waste.

[generate789]

I have to say that I am really enjoying this show. I just finished rereading the books and I liked them even more the second time again. I'm not even bothered by departures from the book, mostly because I didn't want the books to end, so the show is like continuing to explore the Magicians universe. Loving the actors, the sets, and most of the writing on the show. 

[paramitch]

Once they abandoned the "magic = addiction" formula, freeing Julia from a somewhat thankless storyline, I've been ecstatic with the show's creative adaptation of the books. I love that it manages to be faithful in the big picture, but that it has also added so much more depth and complexity to book one's story and characters -- from Margo and Eliot to Quentin and most surprisingly, Alice. And Penny, too. Stillshimpy, I agree with your take on Janet's progression in the books and found it similarly moving, but even more, I love Summer Bishil and the show's more vulnerable and nuanced Margo/Janet.

 

For me, this is the best and most free-form TV literary adaptation since Bryan Fuller's "Hannibal." I love pretty much everything about it.

 

The only person who did it better, in my opinion was Patrick O'Brian in the Aubrey/Maturin series (aka Master and Commander), and he did it over 20-21 books. But at the same time, O'Brian takes his characters from early/mid 20s through to middle age and would have went further if he hadn't precipitously died in 2004 at the age of 86, while writing the 21st novel in the series.  And because I am a total book wank, Grossman has read the series. 

 

Great catch, Lemur! I absolutely adore the Aubrey/Maturin novels (and have read all of them multiple times, enjoying them if possible more every time). I definitely agree with you that the

sloth

was a callout, and that never occurred to me before.

 

I do like how the show has started to incorporate divinity into magic though.   I'm both psyched and heartbroken that the Free Trader's are going to make the scene, because that scene in book two is one of the times I had to stop reading and go do something else for kind of a long time before I felt better. 

 

Which is why I breathed a huge sigh of relief in the last episode, as it seems that they're delaying the horrific encounter with Reynard until... next season, maybe? It would make sense from a storytelling standpoint. And honestly, I was grateful for the revelation that the goddess did come to them and all was benign (as I definitely worried that double-Man-Bun was up to no good).

And yeah, that was a Bad Moment in the books.  I was so upset and so horrified that I had to put the book down as well. I know very bad things are still coming for Julia (and the Free Traders, at least most of them) but I'm glad they got a little lightness and beauty first.

 

That was a big reason why the first book made me so angry that I resented the existence (and success) of the series. Fillory is so obviously Narnia with the serial numbers barely scratched through that it seemed like a pretty direct aspersion on C.S. Lewis. At least the way they handled it on the show in the latest episode, they fleshed it out a bit, so Plover was much less like Lewis and maybe closer to a twisted take on Barrie, who did famously take in children who'd lost parents

 

(snipped for space)

 

So my reaction at the end of book one was "I hate all these people, and this universe isn't even all that clever or imaginative," and I was done. But I feel like the TV series is doing more to edge away from being purely Not!Hogwarts and Not!Narnia, and the characters seem a little more sympathetic.

 

I would definitely agree that the Farnia/Nillory ;-) of the books isn't exactly subtle. For me this aspect of Grossman's books has always hewn awfully close to fan-fiction. The talking animals, the whimsy, the children-through-portals, the dangers, the Englishness, etc. But what I do think Grossman brings to it is that wistful I-want-to-go-to-there quality, that feeling of so many fantasy fiction readers that, "Okay, we did it, we're here... now what?" and what that would be like.

 

Partially because the second book is inspired by a favorite among the Narnia chronicles:  The Voyage of the Dawn Treader.  

 

I think you're right though, Shanna Maria, I think Grossman probably was all for expanding that story to make it clearer that he was never talking about C. S. Lewis because that's the point in the book where a lot of people hit a brake-squealing, record-scratching moment.  Hey sure, be subversive or derivative or present our beloved fantasy worlds all grown-up, with flaws, challenges etc. but do not shit upon the memory of a man who never had even the tiniest whiff of that kind of monstrous behavior in his life. 

 

I was one of those who first (and too hastily) disliked book one (despite some stunning literary moments) and who really loathed Quentin. REALLY. LOATHED. (hee!) But Book 2 got me to like him and book 3 got me to love him. And rereading the entire series recently, I really appreciated what Grossman did with Quentin. I appreciated that he's adolescent and unlikable and selfish in book one because of how far he ends up going (and growing). It's a rich and beautiful characterization, and the casting and writing of Quentin on the show just intensifies that for me (I loved Jason Ralph's Quentin instantly, whininess and all).

 

I was also one of those who was VERY unhappy with Grossman's rather abrupt and odd decision in the books to make Plover a child molester, especially since it was (especially in the books) such a transparent overlay for Narnia that Plover=Lewis was really an unavoidable connotation, and Lewis was a pretty amazing person who was pretty definitely NOT abusing children. I just felt like it added a sudden, modern ugliness that was unnecessary and forced.

 

However, the show's decision to broaden that portrait of Plover as a kind of genuinely scary Gothic creepmeister, complete with creepy murderous sister, worked fine for me for precisely those reasons. TV-Plover is definitely in no way a faux C.S. Lewis, so I'm very grateful to the show for that. And the show's occasional broader strokes into horror work okay for me -- there's a terrible playfulness to it that's something new from the show versus the books.

 

I read the first book because it was billed as exploring the grownup consequences of places like Hogwarts and Narnia, but instead it seemed to be exploring the consequences of being a bitter depressive who drinks and makes bad decisions and can never be happy no matter what.

 

But doesn't that define an awful lot of grownups who wish to live far, far away in a magical fantasy realm? (Not that I'm projecting or anything, hee!) That's precisely what I like about the books and show. It's one thing to wish to go to Narnia and Middle-Earth. But most of us aren't exactly prepared to live a hero's journey on a moment's notice in a semi-Medieval landscape. And what's lovely is that Fillory actually softens Eliot, Janet, Quentin, and even Julia to a degree, giving them back their humanity and innocence.

 

There are horrors in Fillory, but they're perhaps more understandable and clean precisely because they are for the most part inhuman. 

 

I understand changes due to the different format and/or the limited number of episodes, but Julia's side of the story is completely different, with events and names from the books just thrown in. I wanted to rant about it at certain points, but I was too disappointed to spend more time thinking about the show. It was the changes with Pouncy, Failstaff and the reason for attempting to summon a god that made me walk away. Not only were my favorite moments in the books removed, but they were replaced with boring stuff and this time traveling(?) that makes no sense at all. I don't get it. Were Free Trader Beowulf too intellectual and elitist for mainstream audiences? Did the show runners think viewers wouldn't understand what they were doing? Wouldn't empathize? Well then, good thing there's always drug addiction, dead babies, mother issues, and cancer to bring a story to the fold. I wasted how many hours on this?

 

Once they corrected the Magical Addiction storyline for Julia and brought her back to her primary throughline in pursuit of divinity and understanding, I have no complaints about the adaptation of her story and think it's still remarkably faithful in an odd way to the book. I do think it's much less linear, but Julia's discovery of how her powers are meant to be used -- as a way for her to do good -- really moved me, and still does. It made sense that they would have to compress the Free Traders storyline to a degree -- at least her search for them (and I like Richard being Pouncy), so I'm still good with it.

 

I'm even happier knowing the big Reynard reveal has been delayed, whether it will happen in the finale or (as I suspect) early next season -- it would make sense to me, as it would give Julia something to heal from and overcome throughout the Voyage (which is what actually happens in the book, too).

 

Well, now I don't know what to think. (Just watched Thirty-Nine Graves.)  (snipped for space)

 

I think I like it. I think I like how they've folded Julia back into the main storyline, so she'll be there in Fillory with the others. Still processing. And I was not looking forward to the bloodbath and rape with the trickster god, so yay? But I do wonder if they'll still work it in somehow, since the Knife That Can Kill a God is a thing in the show.

 

Now I'm wondering if the Fillory confrontation will also be very different, with not the same lineup of deaths and, y'know, maybe less eating people's hands off.

 

Also: JOSH! Welcome to the party, dude!

 

I suspect that the horror of Reynard's appearance will still happen, but that it will be part of a longer game on the part of Double Man-Bun-Dude. And probably when the poor Free Traders are all happiest and most joyful about furthering their divine connections. Or perhaps someone (Richard?) gets greedy or wants more...?

 

Also, Julia's milk-and-silver moments with the goddess were so gorgeous and so wonderful, and so much like the moment I remembered from the book. I'm so happy Stella Maeve is getting the chance to play more scenes like this, and I love that Julia's character is being given that deep spirituality and sweetness she had in the books, that sense of belonging FINALLY.

 

But I'm very interested to see how the final battle plays out. I'm suspecting that Plover will show up in some monstrous way, that the Beast/Martin will kill him (but maybe manage to have closure with Plover?). I also think that Alice will still be a badass, and that Penny will remain part of the group (and wounded), and that Alice will become a Niffin, but that she will be rescued and returned by midseason or so in S2.

 

I'm really excited to see what comes next for the finale. I can't wait.

[Lemur]

I suspect that the horror of Reynard's appearance will still happen, but that it will be part of a longer game on the part of Double Man-Bun-Dude. And probably when the poor Free Traders are all happiest and most joyful about furthering their divine connections. Or perhaps someone (Richard?) gets greedy or wants more...?

 

I read an interesting fan theory that the Julia-Reynard thing will be revealed via flashbacks, similar to how it plays out in TKM.

 

I also can't wait for the finale, clearly we're going to get some hot ram action (okay, that sounds really dirty) as we had a shot of a sheep-thing in the previews.  I just hope they don't try to cliff-hanger us with some BS regarding Quentin.  We already know it's been renewed for 2 more seasons.  I also put bets on Penny staying very much so in the picture, though I can't see him joining The Order (pity, as his interludes with Q in book are always hilarious, but I've grown to accept that this is a different Penny).  Quite frankly, I welcome that as Arjun Gupta has consistently been an interesting and enjoyable presence in this show.  Also, someone make sure we get more Janet next season.

 

ETA:  Any speculation as to what stays and what goes for the finale and Season 2?

Humbledrum?

Fen and Dint?

The crazy centaur sex farm?

Wooden clavicles?

Andy Warhol hair?

Poppy?

Venice?

Dragon of the Grand Canal?

Quentin's foray into corporate life?

Edited April 8, 2016 by Lemur

[stillshimpy]

And probably when the poor Free Traders are all happiest and most joyful about furthering their divine connections. Or perhaps someone (Richard?) gets greedy or wants more...?

 

Oh boy, or Richard has to present a sacrifice?  The Free Traders haven't been gone into in much detail and I understand that.  As great as the material in the books was it would be difficult to translate onto the screen.  So in the show the Free Traders seemed to have been cast primarily to be easily identified visually, you know?  They are the land of misfit toys in at least two instances.  

 

I know I keep worrying this particular bone, but Richard's stated goals bug me, not in a "I find that to be a flawed story choice!" but in that "Okay, you'd have to be very unstable to think that was possible, changing something that fundamental in your life and then what happens to a child who was meant to die if there is fate at play in this fictional universe?"  Maybe it's just too many years of scifi and fantasy stories for me, but his end goals are not the stuff of reason or sanity.  

 

It also probably doesn't hurt that the actor has that sort of cuddly Everyman But Cute thing going on and the other thing years in various fandoms have taught me is that they tend to be pretty dangerous.   I'm sort of wondering if the terrible-horrible-truly-bad-thing does still happen to the Free Traders, but that Kady gets away and that sets up next season's arc.  It's just that the show already made it clear that Kady/Asmos already knows Battle Magic.  

 

But doesn't that define an awful lot of grownups who wish to live far, far away in a magical fantasy realm? (Not that I'm projecting or anything, hee!) That's precisely what I like about the books and show. It's one thing to wish to go to Narnia and Middle-Earth. But most of us aren't exactly prepared to live a hero's journey on a moment's notice in a semi-Medieval landscape. And what's lovely is that Fillory actually softens Eliot, Janet, Quentin, and even Julia to a degree, giving them back their humanity and innocence.

 

I think one of the most special things that the books achieve is that it takes a group of people through one of the most difficult and often charmless times of their lives, but doesn't sugar coat that last stage of development, late adolescence.  Grossman does have gifts entirely his own and one them is character development, which is an art form unto itself and his changes to the character are so gradual they feel completely natural.  

 

One thing that the books did exceptionally well, I thought, was Janet's relationship to Fillory.  It eventually becomes apparent that she has the most responsible relationship towards Fillory as Fillory.  That she's a truly dedicated custodian of Fillory and Elliot finds his life-footing in ruling and taking care of the mechanics of that.  

 

The show has already sort of laid groundwork for Janet/Margo's eventual development by the things she said to Quentin before their tryst.  By the time the books get around to showing that Janet has a vulnerable and loving side to her, it was almost too late, but Grossman's gift for characterization saved the day there.  Just small details like book three

that she was invested, personally invested, in the idea of Josh and Poppy's baby being raised in Fillory

was both earned and surprising.  The groundwork for that kind of love has already been laid.  

 

Elliot's trajectory is going to be a little tougher to pull off, but since his current emotional agony is expressed mainly through substance abuse, the device to heal that is right there: have him sober up and need things to keep him occupied.  

 

In the books Quentin learns to be both empathetic and self-sacrificing often through the example of the people he loves, he finds his better-self.  I do hope that the series preserves that because (again, book three) moment when Quentin was fully redeemed for me was

when in saving Plum, he realizes that Alice is there and then sets aside his entire life to pursue saving her

.  

 

Lewis's Narnia chronicles loved to redeem characters.  Book one was Edmund, Voyage of the Dawn Treader was Eustace, but it was very night and day, saved by what went down in Narnia and that's entirely cool.  Grossman redeems Quentin gradually and he eventually earns the company he keeps.  It's so gradually done that it seems perfectly natural and wholly earned.  Grossman starts him out with the showdown in Fillory and his hunt for the Questing Beast and he's denied that magical answer for his heart-crushing problem.  

 

I'm assuming though that that will be part of the TV series, because they already took pains to introduce the Questing Beast.  I so want Quentin to save Jane also, paramitch.   I think in Grossman's books without shining too much of a spotlight on it by creating paragons of virtue, the people who are truly heroic in nature are women.  I love that he manages to pull that off without putting anyone on a pedestal.  Quentin becomes who he becomes in no small part because of who Alice and Julia are:  people who threw themselves on live, magical grenades selflessly.  By the third book Quentin rehabs himself to that level.  

 

I didn't dig that magic-is-a-drug storyline , but I've loved the material with Julia after that.  Double-Man-Bun may have been playing someone up to no good, or he might have been one of the first signals that what Julia and the Free Traders are approaching is -- if not predatory -- primal.  That was how Double-Man-Bun struck me.  I have to give it up for the actor because if the camera had pulled back to reveal he had goat legs, I really wouldn't have been that surprised.  There was no way to mistake him for just being purely human.  The question wasn't "What's he up to?" as much as it was "Oh shit, what is he? I think I know but he's even scarier than I thought he'd be" and scary as much as portentous , but not necessarily strictly of "by the pricking of my thumbs...something wicked this way comes!"  type of portentous, instead something powerful and untamed.  

 

Double-Man-Bun had some screen presence.  So maybe Richard is just a man whose judgment is so clouded by grief he's leading them all into something that they have no hope of understanding and therefore can't reason with for requests.   Watching again, I did appreciate Double-Man-Bun's seemingly sincere, if not gently delivered warning about being unable to ring a bell.  

 

But I do wonder if the way the show will handle that is to have Kady get away simply because she's able to fight her way out and the scene-that-worries-everyone will be told without the rape and in flashback so it's only small flashes of horror.   

 

For me, this is the best and most free-form TV literary adaptation since Bryan Fuller's "Hannibal." I love pretty much everything about it.

 

I fully agree.  I'm never much of a purist and in this instance the show has really added and expanded in a lot of the right, fanciful ways for me.   Particularly coming from Syfy it has been such a pleasant surprise.  I haven't loved everything (magic!drugs!) but then I ended up liking it with where it was taken: if you treat something as a drug: it is a drug, which among other things sort of put balm to that long ago Buffy decision. 

 

From that "I don't like this, stop it! Stop i...oh, okay, well fair play to you.  Well done" lesson I'm pulling a big wait and see with the Free Traders.  It's thinner material thus far, but since I do think that only Kady and Richard are important from the group that departed, I do sort of appreciate that in the TV series I wasn't invited to love and invest in the cannon fodder, you know?  

 

That was what made the book scene just agonizing on top of everything else:  I loved those people. What happened to them was terribly painful.  What happened to Julia was almost traumatizing, but I really started to lose it over Pouncy and then when Asmos...well, yeah, I'm at least a little glad that the show didn't ask me to love them.  That alone tells me that they are headed to a terrible slaughter.  

[Crim]

Once they corrected the Magical Addiction storyline for Julia and brought her back to her primary throughline in pursuit of divinity and understanding, I have no complaints about the adaptation of her story and think it's still remarkably faithful in an odd way to the book. I do think it's much less linear, but Julia's discovery of how her powers are meant to be used -- as a way for her to do good -- really moved me, and still does. It made sense that they would have to compress the Free Traders storyline to a degree -- at least her search for them (and I like Richard being Pouncy), so I'm still good with it.

I didn't mean to say that Julia's TV story line is bad. I just said that for me, personally, the TV show took everything I was interested in and replaced it with stuff I really couldn't be more indifferent about. See, I am not even a fan of the book series as a whole. I didn't care much for book 1, not beyond a decent enough, forgettable genre book, and was only interested in Asmo in book 3 (I thought it obvious it was her from almost the very start). But book 2 is just special to me, the kind of book I recommend to people that know me in lieu of explaining stuff to them, especially now that I am once again losing my ability to communicate. It's a "Read this. It's like that." There are entire passages that I could point to instead of trying to use my own words, which is increasingly harder to do. I don't often find media representations that give me this feeling or serve this function. When I got to Pouncy's reveal as to why he was trying to reach OLU, for a moment I couldn't breathe. The Magicians series would have been worth reading even for that one moment. It reminded me of what kept me alive while having constant suicidal ideation, which is precious, because soon I will have to rely on the memory of it.

 

Maybe some viewers will have the same reaction to Julia's TV story line, but I think, maybe selfishly, that there are way more narratives of addiction out there. Regardless of how it was handled, and how annoying some found it, it's just that the addiction shtick is not that rare on TV or movies. I suppose depression isn't either, but this particular depiction hit the right notes for me. I know I should feel lucky that the book exists, and I do, I just wish the show went there.

[stillshimpy]

Well....that was different.  

[Lemur]

Well....that was different.  

 

I was with it until Julia took off with the blade and Martin.  Some parts were stupid - making Eliot marry the ironsmith's daughter for example - some parts were excellent - anything having to do with JanetMargo.  Ember is and always will be an incredible dick.  On that point, while I wish he was an actual talking ram, I understand from a practical FX point of view why that wasn't going to happen.  Also, I missed the trek through Ember's Tomb.  It had a real D&D/RPG quality to it.  This whole "faffing around at the farm" thing felt way too much like the second season of the Walking Dead to me.  Again, yeah, I get it, practical FX budget and all of that.  But a big battle set piece would have been nice.

Edited April 12, 2016 by Lemur

[stillshimpy]

I was with it until Julia took off with the blade and Martin.  Some parts were stupid - making Eliot marry the ironsmith's daughter for example - some parts were excellent - anything having to do with JanetMargo

 

Same here, I thought it was kind of fun, if a little bit "Uh...what are they doing with....okay, I'll go with it.  Yikes.  Ember semen? *hurl*" and as soon as Jane said there was a patch in Julia's memory, it was a case of "Oh yeah, they're all dead, aren't they?"  ....but I didn't guess Marina or that they'd take a complete pass on the Niffin stuff, as well as Alice sacrificing herself.  

 

Elliot having to marry the farm girl was the point at which I twigged to "Oh okay, story with time manipulations in it....that seems like the first clue that this stuff is not going to last..."  not necessarily having to marry the farm girl, but the "forever and ever and ever and ever....and by the way?  No one else, or presumably your bits and parts fall off!"   

 

So at least I felt like they gave a bit of a heads up that there would likely be narrative take-backs in store for us.  

 

Ember managed to even out Jackass book Ember, which takes some doing and I agree, whereas I get why they went with a half-ram-half-man approach I was a little taken aback by the "here, have a squalid god"  .  

 

I also missed the journey into the tomb and there was entirely too much "Here, drink some semen!!"  for me to take the plot progression seriously.  

 

By the way, when I thought they were going to make a composite character out of Reynard and Richard....I didn't even come close to envisioning that.  Holy crow, upsetting scene, ahoy! 

[Lemur]

I also missed the journey into the tomb and there was entirely too much "Here, drink some semen!!"  for me to take the plot progression seriously.  

 

By the way, when I thought they were going to make a composite character out of Reynard and Richard....I didn't even come close to envisioning that.  Holy crow, upsetting scene, ahoy! 

 

In re: "Here, drink some semen!", totally with you there.  I've read enough classic mythology to get it - semen of the gods is super-powerful stuff.  But yeah, I did not need either a glass jar of it nor a scene of Alice chugging it.  Then again, it was a preferable delivery system to that which Julia endured.

 

Also, when I watched the Reynard scene, "literally a composite character" did come to mind.  

[stillshimpy]

Right?  "Well, that's a composite character, all right.  Or possibly a compound character? Hadn't really considered that?"    

 

But yeah, I did not need either a glass jar of it nor a scene of Alice chugging it.

 

Yeah, the magical seed of the gods is often referred to in myth, but among other things, the sheer volume in that vial was...pretty vile.  Yup, couldn't resist.  

 

Also got a good laugh out of the Builder's Grade castle under Cloak of Invisibility ....and Accountancy.  

[Jael]

Well, I did wonder last week if we were supposed to take the "goddess makes everything OK!" at face value, and... now we see the reason for the misdirect. It's clever in a way. They got Julia into the final Beast confrontation while keeping all of the horror of the Reynard rape scene. Still would have preferred not to have to watch that.

 

Related: if I never have to see god semen onscreen again it'll be too soon.

 

I understand why they had Penny's hands chopped off instead of chomped off -- same reason they made Ember a man-ram instead of an actual talking ram -- but that blood-spouting was just yucky.

 

I hope Alice isn't dead, because removing her agency in willingly transforming herself into a niffin to save the others removes the most (only?) interesting thing about her character. But I guess if the Beast is still alive, she can still do that in S2.

Edited April 12, 2016 by Jael

[Lemur]

I understand why they had Penny's hands chopped off instead of chomped off -- same reason they made Ember a man-ram instead of an actual talking ram -- but that blood-spouting was just yucky.

 

And it was also very poorly done.  I hate to use the term "SyFy-level digital FX", but there's a reason why the cliche exists and we saw it right there. 

[stillshimpy]

Yup, that was actually Sharknado levels of FX.  

[shortpplfedup]

By the way, when I thought they were going to make a composite character out of Reynard and Richard....I didn't even come close to envisioning that.

At that point I was like 'so I was half right, but this does not feel yay.'

[Proclone]

I hope Alice isn't dead, because removing her agency in willingly transforming herself into a niffin to save the others removes the most (only?) interesting thing about her character. But I guess if the Beast is still alive, she can still do that in S2.

 

I've liked the show overall and haven't really minded the changes from the book for the most part, but taking away Alice's sacrifice is something I'm disappointed by.  Especially since I thought they were foreshadowing her becoming a niffin pretty heavily at the beginning of the season.  Why have her confront her brother and be unable to save him, if it wasn't leading to her coming full circle and becoming a niffin herself? Especially since those things never happen in the book, we only hear the story of what happened to Charlie.  I get that we were probably never see the really cool scene that was in the book (she turns into a dragon at one point IIRC), but I still wanted to see Alice be a badass and save the day. 

[Lemur]

I was thinking about that, and how the book storyline could work out logistically if they went the niffin route, and I don't think it'll happen.  It would effectively take one of the female leads entirely off the table for at least half a season, and since we've no idea what Kady is going to be up to (and when the Asmo character does show up again in the books it's briefly), taking Alice and potentially Kady out of the game entirely until Quentin's (possible) exile just doesn't seem feasible especially with the TV arc for Julia diverging so drastically from the book.  

 

In other notes, it's interesting to see both the guys who played Quentin and Penny are shooting other series, but I guess that's the "Prime Television" model now, when seasons are only 13 weeks as opposed to 23-26 they probably can juggle the two.   

[Proclone]

I was thinking about that, and how the book storyline could work out logistically if they went the niffin route, and I don't think it'll happen.  It would effectively take one of the female leads entirely off the table for at least half a season, and since we've no idea what Kady is going to be up to (and when the Asmo character does show up again in the books it's briefly), taking Alice and potentially Kady out of the game entirely until Quentin's (possible) exile just doesn't seem feasible especially with the TV arc for Julia diverging so drastically from the book.  

 

In other notes, it's interesting to see both the guys who played Quentin and Penny are shooting other series, but I guess that's the "Prime Television" model now, when seasons are only 13 weeks as opposed to 23-26 they probably can juggle the two.   

 

To be fair, I haven't finished the book series (I'm about halfway through The Magician King), so I'm not entirely sure the exact mechanics of how Quentin brings her back only that he does.  I realize that they're not going to have one of the female leads disappear for an entire season but they still could have had her turn into a niffin but simply accelerate her return.  I honestly wouldn't even mind some magical Fillorian niffin fixing macguffin turning Alice back human very quickly in season two as long she was given a decent arc showing her dealing with what happened to her and her transformation had some actual long term ramifications for her and by extension Quentin.

 

I think there was a way to write the scene that allowed Alice her sacrifice, even if she didn't ultimately defeat the beast (since the show seems set on using him as an antagonist next season), by having her sacrifice allow her friends to escape.  They could have had the Julia's, sort of betrayal, be the reason Alice isn't entirely successful this time in destroying the beast.  Speaking of Julia...

 

As I said, I haven't finished all the books, but I'm also a little disappointed in Julia's character as well.  I don't know if it's entirely the writing or the actress or some combination of both (most likely) but Julia seems to flip back and forth from being annoying and self centered to being sweet and generous like a light switch. They really could have written (and played) her somewhere in the middle and we wouldn't have these wild swings.  When she's being nice, she's very likable.  In most of her scene with the Free Traders she's really lovely.  When she's being self centered she's impossible to root for (IMO).  Honestly I think the show did a better job of showing shades of grey with Marina.  She seemed to embody the "I'll do some really unsavory things to get what I feel is mine,"  that Julia has shades of in the books, better than show Julia.  And her anger at Brakebills seemed less whiny and more real.  Yes, she'll kill you if you steal from her, but if you call her and tell her you were raped and your friends' dead bodies are in your apartment, she'll be right over to help you. As far as the show is concerned I rather liked her better than Julia.

Edited April 13, 2016 by Proclone

[bklynme]

Up until last week; I had only seen the show. But as some others have mentioned, it became increasingly clear that I was missing something. Although to be clear I LOVE the show. LOVE. So I listened to The Magicians between the 12th and last episode. Currently, I am half way thru The Magician King and the season finale was 2 days ago.

Personally, I like the books. But, I dislike a lot of the characters in the books. The show seems book adjacent rather than a true adaptation. I am glad the show was created and enjoy it immensely. I know this might not be the popular sentiment but, I hope they never seriously recreate the books. I mean, we have the books. You love books; you can revisit them over and over. The show is something new and familiar at the same time. I am enjoying it for what it is not lamenting for what it is not.

[Hanahope]

Like others, I started reading the book after the show had started.  I too am just a little over half-way through the Magician King (she just  got to Murs).  While the show doesn't follow the books exactly, I like some of the adaptations.  The books do reference Julia treating magic like a drug, though a lot more singly than with other hedges, so I thought the show did well showing that 'addiction' with Marina rather than having Julia act against herself.  Her attempts to learn other magic through various safe houses and using the "nuclear" option was depicted in the show as well, just a tad differently.  Her meeting FTB was different, but the book way would have been a lot more boring (just watching Julia on the computer, or walking around by herself).

 

I was totally expecting Alice turning into the niffin, based on the show's depiction of her quest to find out about Charlie (which I took to be major foreshadowing, along with Q's eventual ability to turn her back human - again based on what Alice tried to do), so it was a bit surprising when it didn't happen.  Maybe it will happen next season.   I also thought the book's resolution of the Beast was so quick, that I'm not disappointed that the show is extending it out more, and I like that the show made more of a plot line with the Beast than the book did. 

 

Interesting on the pronunciation of names, especially Asmodeus, which in my head I rhymed with Amadeus.

[stillshimpy]

Here's what I'm wondering:  Did they change that ending based on the renewal, by any chance?  

 

Because if that was the way the series ended without a renewal for a second season, that's terrible storytelling.  

 

It's a giant cliffhanger.  Alice being turned into a Niffin does absolutely seem foreshadowed for the first part of the season, including referencing how she knows she is so powerful, it sometimes even scares her. 

 

Just wondering if the renewal informed those story choices.  

[grandemocha]

 

Here's what I'm wondering:  Did they change that ending based on the renewal, by any chance?

I really think they did. If I recall correctly, we got news of the Season 2 renewal very early on, and that means (I assume) the writers and crew knew a little bit before it was public news, which would have left them with plenty of time to re-write or initially write the season finale script so that it ended the way it did.

 

 

Honestly I think the show did a better job of showing shades of grey with Marina.  She seemed to embody the "I'll do some really unsavory things to get what I feel is mine,"  that Julia has shades of in the books, better than show Julia.  And her anger at Brakebills seemed less whiny and more real.  Yes, she'll kill you if you steal from her, but if you call her and tell her you were raped and your friends' dead bodies are in your apartment, she'll be right over to help you. As far as the show is concerned I rather liked her better than Julia.

I hope the actress who plays Marina returns for Season 2 even though she got a role on Wayward Pines.

Edited April 14, 2016 by grandemocha

[stillshimpy]

That's kind of what I'm leaning towards too, grandemocha.  Even though renewal news almost certainly came after the season was done shooting, I wonder if they changed some of the story elements in post-editing knowing they would be back next year.  

[Lemur]

Up until last week; I had only seen the show. But as some others have mentioned, it became increasingly clear that I was missing something. Although to be clear I LOVE the show. LOVE. So I listened to The Magicians between the 12th and last episode. Currently, I am half way thru The Magician King and the season finale was 2 days ago.

Personally, I like the books. But, I dislike a lot of the characters in the books. The show seems book adjacent rather than a true adaptation. I am glad the show was created and enjoy it immensely. I know this might not be the popular sentiment but, I hope they never seriously recreate the books. I mean, we have the books. You love books; you can revisit them over and over. The show is something new and familiar at the same time. I am enjoying it for what it is not lamenting for what it is not.

 

I think the show has done a pretty good job of getting the spirit of the books on screen while not straight-up adapting them.  I think they've hit some false notes and overplayed others but it's still compelling television and the characters, for the most part, are completely recognizable.  I also think you need to read/listen to all of the books to really understand and even decide if you like the characters.  I'll be the first person to admit that there were times when I pretty much hated all of the characters in the books (well, except Josh, but then again he's probably my dream guy), but by the end I think they had earned their endings.  

 

(I also have this theory that to really get these books, to really understand Quentin and Julia you have to be a bit past 25 at least and remember what it was like to be in that late adolescence, on the cusp of true adulthood.  I hate to quote Blink 182, but it's true, no one likes you when you're 23.  And it's because we all tend to be really unlikable at that age, perhaps worse than teenagers.)

Edited April 14, 2016 by Lemur