The Night Circus
is the best example of literary fantasy I've read in a long while, a hybrid
book that stirs elements of steampunk, romance, and legends into a bubbling cauldron
to make something exciting and new. It’s
like Water for Elephants, but with
wizards instead of critters.
The word I thought of most often while reading it was
“agon,” the classic Greek term for a contest between two forces which meet in a
final climactic battle. Morgenstern’s
clever take on this story structure asks what would happen if protagonist and
antagonist fell in love? What if
underneath, the forces were one and the same?
As I read through the reviews of friends on this site I find
myself agreeing with some of the complaints.
Yes, the scene sets are sumptuous, with descriptions of dinners and
spectacle that sometimes become wearying.
Erin Morgenstern excels in her use of imagery, all captured with a third
person limited omniscience and told in present tense, which adds forward
momentum to the plot. Yes, some of the
minor characters like Poppet and Widget become more interesting than the main
characters. Yes, the emotional landscape
of the novel will leave some empty.
Professional reviewers also expressed mixed views. The New
York Times review was less than flattering:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/books/review/the-night-circus-by-erin-morgenstern-book-review.html Stacey D’Erasmo concludes the novel is
bloodless, writing that “[m]agic without passion is pretty much a trip to Pier
One: lots of shrink-wrapped candles. One wishes Morgenstern had spent less time
on the special effects and more on the hauntingly unanswerable question that
runs, more or less ignored, through these pages: Can children love who were
never loved, only used as intellectual machines? What kind of magic reverses
that spell? It’s not as pretty a spectacle, but that’s a story that grips the
heart.” Contrast her take with Ron
Charles’ review in the WaPo, and you
can see why readers will be divided about this book. While he complains about “too much going on”
Charles also notes how “[t]he author mingles a sense of adolescent delight
with a mature chilliness that reflects the circus’s stunning black-and-white
decor, and the abiding potential for violence gives the plot a subtle charge.” His review positively glows.
Ultimately, after reflection, this is still a five star read
in my mind, a book that does what good books should do: transport a reader into another world. It’s a book that works the oldest magic of
all, enchanting the reader. The Night Circus is a richly layered
story, using Shakespeare’s Tempest and
elements of Potter-esque fantasy to tap into the current zeitgeist. How?
I liked this take from Christine Ziemba, who pointed out
that “[a] quick answer lies in DNA.
Human wiring brings along its appetites, and one of these happens to be a
fascination with the unknown, with possibility beyond plausibility. It’s why we
humans can fly now. It’s why our cities light up at night.”
In short, our
dreams. It’s fitting that the final
section includes this quote from Prospero in The Tempest: “We are such
stuff/ as dreams are made on; and our little life/Is rounded with a sleep.” This is why you should read this book.One
of my favorite quotes from the novel captures for me what makes it such a
charming, original and compelling read.
I’ll conclude with it.
“Stories have changed my dear boy,” the man in the grey suit
says, his voice almost imperceptibly sad.
“There are no more battles between good and evil, no monsters to slay,
no maidens in need of rescue. Most maidens
are perfectly capable or rescuing themselves in my experience, at least the
ones worth something, in any case. There
are no longer simple tales with quests and beasts and happy endings. The quests
lack clarity of goal or path. The beasts
take different forms and are difficult to recognize for what they are. And there are never really endings, happy or
otherwise. Things keep going on, they
overlap and blur, your story is part of your sister’s story is part of many
other stories, and there is no telling where any of them may lead. Good and evil are a good deal more complex
than a princess and a dragon, or a wolf and a scarlet-clad little girl. And is not the dragon the hero of his own
story? Is not the wolf simply acting as
a wolf should act? Though perhaps it is
a singular wolf who goes to such lengths as to dress as a grandmother to toy
with its prey.”
No comments:
Post a Comment