Half Magic

I still love this book, though I think I love it a little less than I did when I read it as a kid. As a kid, I could blithely skim over the racism and mild sexism in the book and enjoy it for the wonderful fantastical journey that it was. As an adult, I find it harder to excuse the caricatures of non-white side characters, even given that the book was written in 1954. It wasn't called out in that era, but that didn't make it right, and while I would still recommend this as a fun book for kids I would also highly recommend that their parents read alongside them and discuss the problematic parts.

However. The plot is still a ton of fun, and I loved revisiting the ways that the children got themselves in trouble by getting only half of show more their wishes. The art was included in my ebook version, and I loved seeing that again, too. One interesting point I noticed: I found myself interpreting the “this took place thirty years ago” in the opener to be thirty years from when I first read it in the mid-to-late eighties, not thirty years before now, or thirty years from when it was written. I wonder when in time new readers coming to this book would mentally place this book? show less

Review from my daughter, age 9.
“I liked Half-Magic. I don’t think it’s a good read aloud but good to read yourself. It has an interesting plot twist. If you like magic, funniness, or unusual things that happen you’ll like Half-Magic.”

It’s rare to stumble upon a book that makes you wish you were a kid again, just so you could read it for the first time while you were young. That’s exactly how I felt about Half Magic.

In the beginning the story is a simple tale of a magic charm which grants wishes in halves. By the end of the book Eager has captured a deeper essence of fear and pain that haunts not only children, but grown-ups as well. Even as adults we can baulk at life when we lose someone we love or must accept new circumstances we don’t enjoy.

The writing reminded me of Roald Dahl, which is the highest compliment I can give. The author portrays the kids so honestly. They were neither angels nor devils, they were just children. At times they were selfish or show more silly or scared, but all of those emotions rang true.

In one section (ch. 6) Eager describes the four categories that adults fall into when they are around children. It’s a brilliant description that’s both insightful and funny. Eager found that perfect balance of creating a wonderful story, while at the same time slipping in some life lessons.

Here’s a few great lines …

“All of the four children hated Charlie Chaplin, because he was the only thing grown-ups would ever take them to.”

“One of the least admirable things about people is the way they are afraid of whatever they don’t understand.” show less

It's not often that one returns to a childhood favourite only to find that it is not just as good as one remembers, but possibly is even better than one remembers. Not only did I laugh at the jokes I remembered from childhood, I also found a whole new level of humour, a gentle amusement for the adult reader.

This is set around four children (and their mother), living in Toledo early in the 19th century. It's a hot summer, and they can't afford to go to camp so are stuck in the city being looked after by the crotchety Miss Bick (an unpleasant curmudgeon if ever there was one). And then they find a magical talisman, and their adventures begin.

It's a lovely plot, the children (and their mother) are charming (even when they're grumpy), and show more it's a delightful read. And I think I was terribly influenced by all the children, I can see some of their mannerisms in my behaviour to this day! Not to mention their book/story obsession. A great book for older children, especially those already in love with the written word. show less

Very happy to be re-reading this with my daughter. The humor holds up quite well -- my 6yo is laughing quite a lot at the antics of Carrie the half-talking cat, for instance. There's some cultural history to explain -- what's "Western Union", for instance ("texting before we had cell phones," I said).

There's also some racist language and some gender issues. The "shifty" Arab they encounter, for instance, and then they wish him to have what he deserves and he gets a wife and six children. Even though Eager ended up using it to discuss colonialism, basically, the language and characterization was problematic and shouldn't pass without discussion.

* Update: Now that I've finished, I have a few more comments to make along similar lines. show more There's a continued thread of what I would call minor sexism. The girls do the dishes; the boy & man start the fire. Minor enough that you can re-gender as you read aloud, or discuss it in a joint read. There's a scene with two burglars where they're using some kind of vernacular. The race of the characters isn't mentioned, but the vernacular reads to me like it's intended to be African-American rather than, say, New Jersey. This was unpleasant to read, saved only because I let myself think maybe it was just some kind of weird New Jersey (or similar regional) accent.

But his characterizations of the main characters are pretty solid. The girls are diverse and have strong opinions and distinct characters, just like the boy, which is half the battle, I think.

And the stories retain their humor and winsomeness. So, we'll pick up the next one (Magic by the Lake), which was one of my absolute favorites as a kid. show less

Mostly, I love this book. I liked it as a kid (except for that caveat I'll get to in a minute). I like it now, as a grown-up. The story is interesting and engaging. The trouble the kids get themselves into is believable (well, for a fantasy novel...!), and I like their solutions. The problem of having to double all your wishes is interesting to me. The only thing is...

The only thing is that a whole chapter is taken up with a trip to a desert, where the children run across an evil, wicked, terrible Arab man. Even the illustration is an ugly caricature. There isn't even a feasible way to avoid this part - it's interwoven in the story in such a way that you can't simply say "Look, this is a part that I feel is inappropriate, we're not show more reading it today" and skip to the next part.

Now, I know, somebody is going to pop up and say "But you can't judge books from 60 years ago according to OUR standards today!" Fair enough. But I'm not reading this book to a child 50 years ago. I'm reading it (or not, actually - I haven't put it on my to-be-read list yet precisely because of this problem) to children NOW. Even when I was a kid, a mere 30 years after the book's publication, that part made me uncomfortable.

Am I saying you're bad for liking this book? Absolutely not. I like this book! Am I saying you shouldn't read this book to your children, or allow them to read it? Not necessarily. I certainly support you if that is your choice, but that's not what I mean to say. All I'm saying is that you should read this book yourself before you read it with your children (or use it in a classroom, especially if you have Arab students!), and decide for yourself the best way to approach this issue. It may be to find a way to skip that passage, or it may be to not read the book just yet (or at all - there are plenty of good books out there, choosing one always requires NOT-choosing another!) or it may be to discuss this part with your children and explain your views on the subject, or it may be that you think it's not a big deal. (I disagree with the last, but that's your choice.)

Other than that one thing, this is a very good book. It's just that that one thing is SO important. Please pre-read this book. show less

Very happy to be re-reading this with my daughter. The humor holds up quite well -- my 6yo is laughing quite a lot at the antics of Carrie the half-talking cat, for instance. There's some cultural history to explain -- what's "Western Union", for instance ("texting before we had cell phones," I said). [return][return]There's also some racist language and some gender issues. The "shifty" Arab they encounter, for instance, and then they wish him to have what he deserves and he gets a wife and six children. Even though Eager ended up using it to discuss colonialism, basically, the language and characterization was problematic and shouldn't pass without discussion. [return][return]* Update: Now that I've finished, I have a few more comments show more to make along similar lines. There's a continued thread of what I would call minor sexism. The girls do the dishes; the boy & man start the fire. Minor enough that you can re-gender as you read aloud, or discuss it in a joint read. There's a scene with two burglars where they're using some kind of vernacular. The race of the characters isn't mentioned, but the vernacular reads to me like it's intended to be African-American rather than, say, New Jersey. This was unpleasant to read, saved only because I let myself think maybe it was just some kind of weird New Jersey (or similar regional) accent.[return][return]But his characterizations of the main characters are pretty solid. The girls are diverse and have strong opinions and distinct characters, just like the boy, which is half the battle, I think. [return][return]And the stories retain their humor and winsomeness. So, we'll pick up the next one (Magic by the Lake), which was one of my absolute favorites as a kid. show less