L. Jagi Lamplighter

Fun little kids at Magic School YA fantasy - protagonist is 13 yr old girl so certainly aimed at the younger end, but the world building and generally school plotlines are widely applicable to general audiences. The author has taken the bold decision to cast our heroine from a privileged background - not nobility but landed gentry all the same. She makes a surprisingly easy transition to the school in america.

Her early search for friends brings a nicely diverse mix, and the usual antagonists. Given the story take s place over just the first 5 days of term this all happens a little quickly, but life as a teenager can be like that sometimes. The whole evil schoolteacher routine is less believable but at least there was some motive given for their behaviour.

I liked the school the characters (sightly too many though, became a little bit confusing as to who was friends or enemies with who and the backgrounds weren't quite as established as they could be) and the world, the pacing was rushed, a few plot points left open hopefully to be completed in the sequels - I'll probably read them as I come across them.… (mer)

The book begins with: "This world is like the world you know, only slightly different." Something important is missing. Since I stumbled on this book via random browsing on Amazon, and knew nothing about it except for the teaser on the web page, I wasn't 100% certain what the author meant by that until a few books into the series, though there are hints from the very beginning. It does become increasingly clear exactly what the author has deliberately eliminated, and I'm very curious exactly what she is going to do with that. (I'm writing this book review after devouring the first 4 books, and then wondering when the 5th is going to be released.)

The world is our world, sort of, with one omission (as the opening statement indicates) and one important addition: a secret magical society, kind of like the wizarding world in Harry Potter but not as preposterous. A comparison to Harry Potter is inevitable, so here goes:
- This book is not as funny as Harry Potter. It's not devoid of humor, but the humor is mostly witticisms, not slapstick. Not as much of the book dwells on the incongruity of our world next to the magical world.
- Unlike Harry Potter, every book in the series does NOT end with a deus ex machina salvation, at least not so obviously and obnoxiously. Rachel Griffin wins out not because an all-powerful headmaster intervenes at the last minute; she wins because she (and her friends) are actually really good, often *better* than the adults in the particular conflict here.
- Like Harry Potter, the story is as much about the friendships and loyalty to friends and principle. Unlike Harry Potter, the friendships are a little trickier to navigate, with more conflicting loyalties and differing goals.
- Like Harry Potter, Rachel Griffin has courage and loyalty to her friends.
- Harry Potter's world is missing the same thing that this world is missing. However, J. K. Rowling seems not to have felt the incongruity.
- Rachel Griffin loves broom riding, like Harry Potter.
- Unlike Harry Potter, Rachel Griffin is actually very good at something more than broom riding. I much prefer that the protagonists be really good at what they do. Harry Potter is mostly an average guy who by chance happened to inherit a bunch of stuff from the really competent people; he is in no way capable of achieving even what his father achieved in terms of magic. (Even by the end, Harry would be helpless to make something like the marauder's map, something his father and friends did as a mere prank when they were young.) Rachel Griffin is the youngest in a family of magical stars but does not suffer from the comparison.
- Rachel Griffin is from an intact, loving family. Not a perfect family, by any means, but a basically healthy one. Harry Potter is the classic oppressed orphan. Since I'm not an abandoned orphan, I find Rachel easier to relate to than Harry.
- This book alludes to and even quotes much of the best of our literary and semi-popular culture. There's all sorts of western and non-western myths, and there's C. S. Lewis and Star Trek allusions. There's probably more that I missed, too. It's fun to see all that woven into a story about magic.
- Though the author doesn't dwell too much on it, there's definitely some substance and some thought about how magic could work, more so than the seemingly random abilities in Harry Potter.
There's even a discussion about how learning Newton's laws of physics helps the magicians.

I wouldn't say this is a totally gripping read, but there is enough here (interesting people; interesting magic; interesting ideas; a fairly interesting plot) to make it well worth the time.… (mer)

"This world is like the world you know, only slightly different." That's how this book begins: something important is missing from the world. Since I stumbled on this book via random browsing on Amazon, and knew nothing about it except for the teaser on the web page, I wasn't 100% certain what the author meant by that until a few books into the series, though there are hints from the very beginning. It does become increasingly clear exactly what the author has deliberately eliminated, and I'm very curious exactly what she is going to do with that. (I'm writing this book review after devouring the first 4 books, and then wondering when the 5th is going to be released.)

The world is our world, sort of, with one omission (as the opening statement indicates) and one important addition: a secret magical society, kind of like the wizarding world in Harry Potter but not as preposterous. A comparison to Harry Potter is inevitable, so here goes:
- This book is not as funny as Harry Potter. It's not devoid of humor, but the humor is mostly witticisms, not slapstick. Not as much of the book dwells on the incongruity of our world next to the magical world.
- Unlike Harry Potter, every book in the series does NOT end with a deus ex machina salvation, at least not so obviously and obnoxiously. Rachel Griffin wins out not because an all-powerful headmaster intervenes at the last minute; she wins because she (and her friends) are actually really good, often *better* than the adults in the particular conflict here.
- Like Harry Potter, the story is as much about the friendships and loyalty to friends and principle. Unlike Harry Potter, the friendships are a little trickier to navigate, with more conflicting loyalties and differing goals.
- Like Harry Potter, Rachel Griffin has courage and loyalty to her friends.
- Harry Potter's world is missing the same thing that this world is missing. However, J. K. Rowling seems not to have felt the incongruity.
- Rachel Griffin loves broom riding, like Harry Potter.
- Unlike Harry Potter, Rachel Griffin is actually very good at something more than broom riding. I much prefer that the protagonists be really good at what they do. Harry Potter is mostly an average guy who by chance happened to inherit a bunch of stuff from the really competent people; he is in no way capable of achieving even what his father achieved in terms of magic. (Even by the end, Harry would be helpless to make something like the marauder's map, something his father and friends did as a mere prank when they were young.) Rachel Griffin is the youngest in a family of magical stars but does not suffer from the comparison.
- Rachel Griffin is from an intact, loving family. Not a perfect family, by any means, but a basically healthy one. Harry Potter is the classic oppressed orphan. Since I'm not an abandoned orphan, I find Rachel easier to relate to than Harry.
- This book alludes to and even quotes much of the best of our literary and semi-popular culture. There's all sorts of western and non-western myths, and there's C. S. Lewis and Star Trek allusions. There's probably more that I missed, too. It's fun to see all that woven into a story about magic, without feeling intrusive.
- Though the author doesn't dwell too much on it, there's definitely some substance and some thought about how magic could work, more so than the seemingly random abilities in Harry Potter. There's even a discussion about how learning Newton's laws of physics helps the magicians.

I wouldn't say this is a totally gripping read, but there is enough here (interesting people; interesting magic; interesting ideas; a fairly interesting plot) to make it well worth the time.… (mer)

Didn't finish, quit early in Ch 2. The writing is just too amateurish. For one thing, as the previous reviewer noted, the exclamation point is severely overused. Also, the first-person narrator frequently says things like this:

"Blah blah," I told him regally.

Or "Blah blah," I said sternly.

You can't assess yourself in this way. You can't say you seem regal; that just makes you look like a dork. It's for other people to decide if you seem regal. Too much of the dialog is handled like this.

And here's a passage from Ch 1:

I... enjoyed the soft caress of the balmy air as it mingled the delicate scents of lilac and hyacinths with the heady perfume of honeysuckle and roses, as well as the faint odor of pine.

The problem is that each noun is modified by exactly one adjective. The overall impression is that it's formulaic. E.g., The tall man walked down the dusty road to his unknown destination, his uneasy thoughts flitting about in his troubled mind as he led his weary horse through the parched landscape...

A writer must vary the structure of her prose, even within a single sentence, if the sentence is long enough.

Another problem is that she belabors the obvious, saying things like, "My father had disappeared, and I was concerned." Well, duh! You needn't tell us that you were concerned about your father disappearing!

Overall, I found myself fighting the writing as I read, thus the quick DNF.… (mer)