The Amulet of Samarkand
Dec. 2nd, 2006 11:44 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
quippeThe Blurb On The Back:
A young magician's apprentice, Nathaniel, secretly summons the irascible 5,000 year-old djinni, Bartimaeus, to do his bidding. The task for Bartimaeus is not an easy one - he must steal the powerful Amulet of Samarkand from Simon Lovelace, a master magician of unrivalled ruthlessness and ambition. Before long, Bartimaeus and Nathaniel are caught up in a terrifying flood of magical intrigue, rebellion and murder.
Set in modern-day London controlled by magicians, this hilarious, bestselling thriller will enthrall readers of all ages.
In a young adult market filled with dragons, demons, and wizards getting their training, this book is a real stand out (for all its use of magicians). For a start, Stroud has bucked the trend by having not one, but two central characters who do not naturally elicit sympathy from the reader.
The book is told from two perspectives - the djinni Bartimaeus tells his story in the first person. Witty and with a certain honest charm, he makes no secret of his desire to kill his master Nathaniel (or at least see him come to some sticky end). His sections have a real pace to them and he's a good way of getting a different perspective on the alternative London that Stroud has concocted, pointing out its many faults and the flaws of the magicians who rule it. Where his sections suffer (in my opinion) is the occassional split between telling his sections in the first person and then suddenly spinning out to the third person to show what he's doing. I personally found it jarring and a little needless. I also found the use of footnotes to pad out his perspective a little irritating. Whilst the footnotes are amusing in themselves, I don't really think that they add anything to the text.
Given Batimaeus's dislike for his master, you might be forgiven for thinking that Nathaniel is a sympathetic character. There are elements that lead you down this path - we find that he's been sold by his parents at an early age into apprenticeship with Arthur Underwood, a man who makes no secret of his dislike of having to train him and who views him with contempt. He has only two friends - Mrs Underwood who seems to genuinely care and look after him, and his art teacher, Ms Lutyens who shows him kindness and takes the trouble to listen to his concerns. However, as his backstory is unveiled, you can see that for all the wrongs that are perpetrated on him (including a humiliating spanking at the hands of Simon Lovelace's djinii), his reaction is to seek revenge. He cares nothing for Underwood or for the consequences of his actions and you can see a certain arrogance start to fill him, so sure is he of his own powers and so contemptuous is he of the non-magic commoners, who the magicians rule. What is most interesting though is that when he's faced with the consequences of his actions, his chargrain and sorrow are channeled into more actively seeking power and control. He learns nothing from his adventure and if anything, actually becomes more lost by the end of the book. In a fantasy world of sympathetic child protragonists, this is unusual and it's the skill of Stroud's writing abilities that carries it so well.
The plot itself is very simple, albeit told in a well paced way. Nathaniel wants revenge for his humiliation at the hands of Simon Lovelace by stealing from him the Amulet of Samarkand - an artefact of great but uncertain power, which Nathaniel knows Lovelace has himself killed for. Bartimaeus steals it for him. But then Simon finds out, takes it back in a horrific way and you discover that a conspiracy is afoot to overthrow the prime minister and place Lovelace in control. Only Bartimaeus and Nathaniel can stop it.
I enjoyed the fact that Stroud's London is so easy to believe in. He sensibly keeps the famous landmarks and, deliciously, certain key figures from history - the idea of Gladstone as one of Britain's most powerful magicians is v. clever. I also thought that the way he explains how magic works (i.e. that it's essentially done by commanding imps and djinni and other demonic creatures) was original, clever and had a well-thought out internal logic to it.
Where the book falls down slightly is the villain. Simon Lovelace is not a complicated man - obviously evil and desirous of power, I felt that I'd seen his type in too many other books of this genre and in fact he did remind me a great deal of J. K. Rowling's Lucius Malfoy. I was intrigued by his henchman however, who doesn't seem to be affected by the magic thrown at him by the djinni and would have liked to see more of him.
The Verdict:
A very original addition to the YA fantasy genre, I very much enjoyed this book as it's well paced, well thought out and has two interesting and dynamic central characters. I'm interested in finding out more about both Nathaniel and Bartimaeus and looking forward to reading the second in this trilogy. I definitely give this book a strong recommendation, both to fantasy fans and to people who read YA fiction.
A young magician's apprentice, Nathaniel, secretly summons the irascible 5,000 year-old djinni, Bartimaeus, to do his bidding. The task for Bartimaeus is not an easy one - he must steal the powerful Amulet of Samarkand from Simon Lovelace, a master magician of unrivalled ruthlessness and ambition. Before long, Bartimaeus and Nathaniel are caught up in a terrifying flood of magical intrigue, rebellion and murder.
Set in modern-day London controlled by magicians, this hilarious, bestselling thriller will enthrall readers of all ages.
In a young adult market filled with dragons, demons, and wizards getting their training, this book is a real stand out (for all its use of magicians). For a start, Stroud has bucked the trend by having not one, but two central characters who do not naturally elicit sympathy from the reader.
The book is told from two perspectives - the djinni Bartimaeus tells his story in the first person. Witty and with a certain honest charm, he makes no secret of his desire to kill his master Nathaniel (or at least see him come to some sticky end). His sections have a real pace to them and he's a good way of getting a different perspective on the alternative London that Stroud has concocted, pointing out its many faults and the flaws of the magicians who rule it. Where his sections suffer (in my opinion) is the occassional split between telling his sections in the first person and then suddenly spinning out to the third person to show what he's doing. I personally found it jarring and a little needless. I also found the use of footnotes to pad out his perspective a little irritating. Whilst the footnotes are amusing in themselves, I don't really think that they add anything to the text.
Given Batimaeus's dislike for his master, you might be forgiven for thinking that Nathaniel is a sympathetic character. There are elements that lead you down this path - we find that he's been sold by his parents at an early age into apprenticeship with Arthur Underwood, a man who makes no secret of his dislike of having to train him and who views him with contempt. He has only two friends - Mrs Underwood who seems to genuinely care and look after him, and his art teacher, Ms Lutyens who shows him kindness and takes the trouble to listen to his concerns. However, as his backstory is unveiled, you can see that for all the wrongs that are perpetrated on him (including a humiliating spanking at the hands of Simon Lovelace's djinii), his reaction is to seek revenge. He cares nothing for Underwood or for the consequences of his actions and you can see a certain arrogance start to fill him, so sure is he of his own powers and so contemptuous is he of the non-magic commoners, who the magicians rule. What is most interesting though is that when he's faced with the consequences of his actions, his chargrain and sorrow are channeled into more actively seeking power and control. He learns nothing from his adventure and if anything, actually becomes more lost by the end of the book. In a fantasy world of sympathetic child protragonists, this is unusual and it's the skill of Stroud's writing abilities that carries it so well.
The plot itself is very simple, albeit told in a well paced way. Nathaniel wants revenge for his humiliation at the hands of Simon Lovelace by stealing from him the Amulet of Samarkand - an artefact of great but uncertain power, which Nathaniel knows Lovelace has himself killed for. Bartimaeus steals it for him. But then Simon finds out, takes it back in a horrific way and you discover that a conspiracy is afoot to overthrow the prime minister and place Lovelace in control. Only Bartimaeus and Nathaniel can stop it.
I enjoyed the fact that Stroud's London is so easy to believe in. He sensibly keeps the famous landmarks and, deliciously, certain key figures from history - the idea of Gladstone as one of Britain's most powerful magicians is v. clever. I also thought that the way he explains how magic works (i.e. that it's essentially done by commanding imps and djinni and other demonic creatures) was original, clever and had a well-thought out internal logic to it.
Where the book falls down slightly is the villain. Simon Lovelace is not a complicated man - obviously evil and desirous of power, I felt that I'd seen his type in too many other books of this genre and in fact he did remind me a great deal of J. K. Rowling's Lucius Malfoy. I was intrigued by his henchman however, who doesn't seem to be affected by the magic thrown at him by the djinni and would have liked to see more of him.
The Verdict:
A very original addition to the YA fantasy genre, I very much enjoyed this book as it's well paced, well thought out and has two interesting and dynamic central characters. I'm interested in finding out more about both Nathaniel and Bartimaeus and looking forward to reading the second in this trilogy. I definitely give this book a strong recommendation, both to fantasy fans and to people who read YA fiction.
