I began this novel with a distinct sense of
déjà vu. It looks like a somewhat Americanised Harry Potter clone, and indeed it is,
with a more coherent magic system, and a somewhat more plausible setting (just how do you
hide a castle the size of Hogwarts?) The Magisterium is as you might expect, a wizard
school, but its somewhere in the eastern US underground in a natural cave system
(possibly based on the Luray Caverns in Virginia). Our lead characters are apprentice
mages, in their first, or "iron" year. The protagonist is Call (short for Callum
I would have thought it should be Cal, but the authors chose otherwise) who is one
of those irritating young teens that seem to populate a certain type of juvenile
literature. With better reason than most, as it turns out. He finds himself sitting the
entrance test for the Magisterium, and tries desperately to fail, only in his failure he
manages to prove his not inconsiderable talent for magic. He must be trained, is
apprenticed, and spends considerable time learning concentration and control. And then
another student runs away, precipitating a series of events that leads to a spectacular
climax with a fine twist on the "I am your father" moment.
The problem is that it is all very like Harry Potter and has been royally
criticised for just that similarity. On the other hand, Ive seen people carping at
"magical school" stories which were actually published considerably earlier
claiming that they were ripping off Potter. In fact, it was Harry Potter that
"copied" earlier work, notably T.H. Whites The Sword in the
Stone (Rowling admits as much). So, should we make comparisons, or let each
new story stand or fall on its own merit? The Iron Trial has its
merits, its an enjoyable read, and well enough written. In many ways, it makes more
sense than the Potter books, so if thats the sort of thing you like, read and enjoy!
|