The Magus by John Fowles (1966) — novel #251

Creepy! Creepy and suspenseful. I couldn’t put it down.

The human race is unimportant. It is the self that must not be betrayed. ~ Maurice Conchis, who is, the magus.

• The Magus by John Fowles
• Postmodern novel, mystery, suspense
• Published: 1966
• Revised version: 1977 with a foreword by the author
• Little, Brown and Company (eBook)
• Setting: England and Greece, 1953
• Also by this author (that I’ve read): The French Lieutenant’s Woman; The Collector

 

 

Novel 21 of 50 of The Classics Club Challenge Round IV and my “spin” book for The Classics Club Spin #43

 

My rating 4/5 stars

 

 

I said it was creepy. At first it is rather pedestrian back story. But that doesn’t last long. When the story moves to Greece, it gets creepy fast. Then maddening, then terrifying, all the while confusing, and when I’d almost given up, perhaps…redeeming?

 

Nicholas Urfe is young, middle class, English: his father is a brigadier, and according to Nicholas… 

my mother was the very model of a would-be major-general’s wife.

Nice! See what he did there?

 

Nicholas is a decent chap, Oxford grad, bit of a cavalier with the ladies, bored and without direction. He doesn’t precisely rebel against his parents or England, but he wants something different, and decides on a position in Greece, teaching English at a boys school on the fictional island Phraxos, (actual island Spetses). In his wandering, he discovers the secluded estate of a wealthy Greek recluse, Maurice Conchis. Colleagues and locals warn Nicholas away, and tell him Conchis is unapproachable, yet the first time Nicholas approaches the estate he is welcomed as if expected. The host, Conchis, is mysterious, charming, and intelligent. According to Nicholas…

He was obviously a man who rarely smiled. There was something mask-like, emotion-purged, about his face.

Conchis is highly intuitive, claims to be psychic, and seems to be playing mind-games with Nicholas. God games actually, and Nicholas’ life begins to spin slowly out of control.

 

It took me right up until the end to decide that I liked this book. Though, I was hooked at Conchis first appearance. I knew he was creepy, perhaps dangerous, but he was fascinating. And then there is a cast of characters: literally characters playing parts for Conchis. Nicholas knows they are, usually acting, but are they willing minions, coerced dupes, hypnotized subjects, paid actors, or maybe even schizophrenic? One of them happens to be a beautiful young woman, Lily, or Julie, or Vanessa. There are actually two beautiful young women, the other being Lily's twin. But Nicholas is only obsessed with the Lily, whatever her name is. Time and again, Nicholas confronts them, the twins particularly, and they seem to come clean. Nicholas, along with the reader, exhales a giant sigh of relief, and then…WHAM! Another bizarre turn.

 

Near the end I was getting a bit fed up with Fowles. I’m OK with a brilliant madman character, even a brilliant evil madman, but I was far from certain Conchis was any of that and as a spectator, I was hooked on the drama, but I couldn’t imagine the author’s point. Very near the end, when the God game is very nearly done, when Nicholas and the reader thinks it IS done, Conchis tells Nicholas...

Learn to smile, Nicholas. Learn to smile.

Nicholas should have punched him.

 

But I didn’t yet understand. I don’t approve of Conchis’ methods. You have to believe that the end justifies the means to approve, and I don’t. But I can accept that Conchis believed that. I’m not certain Fowles does. He called The Magus a “Rorschach test in psychology”. That seems about right. He also said “…there is no given ‘right’ reaction.”

 

I wouldn’t recommend it for young readers. There are a few spots that would definitely be "R" rated. If you like psychological terror or suspense, you might love this. If you dislike ambiguous endings, you may not like it, although…

 

I definitely recommend the 1977 revised version. Fowles responded to complaints about the ambiguous ending. In the foreword to the 1977 version he explains: 

I accept that I might have declared a preferred aftermath less ambiguously…and now have done so.

The ending is still ever so slightly ambiguous. However, I am convinced that what happens next is exactly what the reader is hoping for, and the end that in Conchis’ mind justified his means. It ends with a French saying, that can be translated:

Let those love now who’ve never loved;

Let those who’ve loved, love yet again.

Sort of an aside: Nicholas has three girls that he “loves” in this book: Allison, he carelessly breaks her heart before leaving England; Julie on Phraxos; and Jojo back in Jolly Old England. I doubt Nicholas would say he ever loved Jojo, but I say he did. He never slept with her, though she was willing. He unburdens himself on her, rehearses the recent follies of his life. Nicholas says of Jojo… 

She was the strangest priest to confess before; but not the worst. For she absolved me

I enjoyed this novel very much, more than my other reads of Fowles: The French Lieutenant’s Woman and The Collector. Have you read The Magus? Fowles? What did you think.

 

BTW, I've changed my review format. Feedback is appreciated. 

 

. 

 

Love’s Labour’s Lost by William Shakespeare

Love’s Labour’s Lost is a comedy by William Shakespeare, written in the late sixteenth century.

 

Ferdinand, king of Navarre, and three of his noblemen, Lord Berowne, Lord Longaville, and Lord Dumaine, swear off women for three years in order to devote themselves to study.

 

What could go wrong? The arrival of the Princess of France, and her three attendants, Lady Rossaline, Lady Maria, and Lady Katherine.

 

Now get this, you’ll never guess, but the Pincess and her ladies just happen to be beautiful, and single.

 

The play can almost write itself: well conceived for the Bard’s comedic pen.

 

But I had a little problem with it. Although the situation did indeed produce some wonderful comic moments, and witty dialogue, there were also eventualities that I found incongruent, inexplicable, or unnecessary.

 

The incongruity: The greatest weakness, in my opinion, is how how easily the King and company excuse themselves from their oaths. They had sworn that if they should break them they would…

 

Endure such public shame as the rest of the court can possibly devise.

 

But they rather flippantly decide that since love is the most worthy study, it’s ok to break their oaths.

 

The comedy is great. Their infidelity is just too easy, too quick, too without shame.

 

The inexplicable. Once they collectively decide to forget about that silly old oath, they disguise themselves as Russians in order to profess their love. Ummm…what?!?

 

Still, great comedy ensues, as the Princess and her ladies learn of this plan, and themselves exchange veils and costumes, so as to confound their lovesick admirers.

 

The Princess explains this…

 

We are wise girls to mock our lovers so.

 

And later, in a bit more detail…

 

The effect of my intent is to cross theirs:

They do it but in mocking merriment;

And mock for mock is only my intent.

Their several counsels they unbosom shall

To loves mistook; and so be mock’d withal

Upon the next occasion that we meet.

With visages display’d to talk and greet.

 

That at least makes sense.

 

The uneccesary: A bit later all deceipt is unmasked, they all have a good chuckle, and are immediately treated to a play of The Nine Worthies: the play within the play, enacted by some other minor characters in Shakespeare’s play. Ohhhkay.

 

Before The Nine Worthies is finished a messenger arrives with sad news that the Princess’ father has died, which is kind of a bummer, considering this is a comedy. In pretty short order, the King and Lords promise to wait a year and a day, while the Princess and Ladies mourn, and then all will be happily married, and all’s well that ends well…pardon the Shakespearific pun.

 

As always, I’m certain it would come off better experienced via stage rather than read. I wasn’t a big fan, due to the inconsistencies I’ve mentioned. It isn’t just me. This is not one of Shakespeare’s more respected plays.

 

Also, I don't get the second apostrophe in the title: Labour's What? 

 

 

 

 

Loving by Henry Green (1945): novel #250

Henry Green’s Loving is generally considered his best novel, though perhaps somewhat under-appreciated. I found it a bit like Downton Abbey meets Jeeves and Wooster. 

It is set in a stately Irish country house, owned and occupied by English tenants, literally named Tennant, and staffed primarily by English domestics. It takes place during the Nazi blitz of England. The Novel opens at the deathbed of the senior butler, Mr. Eldon.

 

The reader is given no background, no backstory, not even so much as I’ve offered in the previous paragraph. It is challenging at first to understand the goings-on, between the upstairs Mrs. Tennant and her daughter-in-law Mrs. Jack (Tennant), and the shakeup in the downstairs staff. Already somewhat ill-at-ease over fear of Nazis and I.R.A., the staff must navigate the new order of things.

 

The tenants are away for much of the story, leaving the servants to fend for themselves. Under-butler Charley Raunce becomes Mr. Raunce and senior butler, not quite to the liking of head-maid, Mrs. Burch. Early on the reader is inclined to agree with Mrs. Burch, as Raunce seems a bit of a scoundrel. Mrs. Burch’s “girls”, Kate and Edith, are more amenable to Mr. Raunce, especially Edith. There is a good deal of blushing and giggling between them. Mrs. Welch is the gin-drinking cook. Her girls Jane and Mary giggle and blush as well. There is Raunce’s next man, shy and flappable Albert, and one Irish servant, Paddy, whom no one can understand, save Kate. Back upstairs Mrs. Swift is nanny for Mrs. Jack’s two daughters,

 

While adjusting to one another, the staff is further troubled over Mrs. Tennant’s missing ring, and the murder of an ostrich. One of the best scenes is when an insurance adjuster comes to inquire about the ring while Mrs. Tennant is away. Raunce is defensive and disobliging, while other staff are naïve and/or terrified. It only confounds things, or makes them more delightful for the reader, that the insurance man is just from the dentist and speaks with a lisp, lithp that is.

 

Loving—the title: well who can know what an author is thinking? There is certainly a love story, and another that may not be quite love, but something like it. I think too, there are other, less conventional loves: self-love, ego whatever you like, familial love, love of safety, peace, comfort, country, forbidden love, and unrequited love.

 

My Rating: 3 ½ stars

Primarily for the characters. The dialogue was a bit hard to follow for this reader, but the fears, foibles, and fantasticness (for the sake of literation) of the characters clearly shines through. Raunce is not a scoundrel after all, not really.

 

Have you read Loving? What did you think? Recommendations for other books by Henry Green? 

 

. 

 

Classics Club Spin #43

It is time for the 43rd edition of the Classics Club Spin – List 20 books from my Classics Club “to be read” list by Sunday, February 8, 2026; the mods will then pick a random number, and I have until March 29 to read the corresponding book. (I’m not quite clear on the penalty for not completing it on time; I’ve never tested those waters.)

 

UPDATE: And the lucky number is... 2

Not feeling so lucky for me. I am underwhelmed.  

 

My spin list:

 

1. Barnaby Rudge by Charles Dickens

2. The Magus by John Fowles

3. The Long Winter (Little House #6) by Laura Ingalls Wilder

4. Lord Jim by Joseph Conrad

5. A Spy In The House Of Love by Anais Nin

6. The Ballad of the Sad Café by Carson McCullers

7. Grendel by John Gardner

8. Things Fall Apart  by Chinua Achebe

9. Scoop by Evelyn Waugh

10. Cool Hand Luke by Don Pearce

11. The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian by Sherman Alexie

12. The Silver Sword (Escape from Warsaw) by Ian Serraillier

13. Post Office by Charles Bukowski

14. The Mask of Dimitrios by Eric Ambler

15. Anne of Green Gables by Lucy Maud Montgomery

16. Carmilla by Sheridan Le Fanu

17. The Ascent of Rum Doodle by W. E. Bowman

18. Kim by Rudyard Kipling

19. Casino Royale by Ian Fleming

20. The Deerslayer by James Fenimore Cooper

 

I’m probably hoping for Lord Jim, but The Ascent of Rum Doodle would be fun too. I haven’t read McCullers in a while so Sad Café would be my third choice. I’m hoping for something NOT terribly long, so hoping against Dickens or Fowles, but I’ll take what I get. Cheers!

 

. 

Ball Four: 50th Anniversary Edition by Jim Bouton

 

You see, you spend a good piece of your life gripping a baseball and in the end it turns out that it was the other way around all the time. ~ Jim Bouton

When Ball Four was published in 1970, it was scandalous; scandalous and revolutionary. The author, an aging knuckleball pitcher with the Seattle Pilots and a baseball insider, broke the rule of “what you see here stays here”. Bouton asserts…

I broke that rule, which makes me a deviant, sociologically speaking.

If Mickey Mantle had written Ball Four he would have gotten away with it. A relief pitcher on the Seattle Pilots has no business being a deviant.

It angered owners, umpires, sportswriters, coaches, and especially players. Bouton alleges that Pete Rose would scream at him from the opposing dugout…

F*&% you, Shakespeare!

He portrayed owners as cheap and disingenuous and coaches as detached and occasionally absurd.

Today Joe Schultz [manager of the Seattle Pilots] said, “Well, boys, it’s a round ball and a round bat and you got to hit it square.”

 

Any injury is beyond a manager’s control and he doesn’t like anything he can’t control. So if you’re out too long with an injury he gets angry at you. The logic is almost perfect.

And his teammates? I got the impression Bouton liked most of them. There were quirky, human, and mostly harmless, if not all of them Rhodes Scholars. There is some talk of off-field antics — mostly drinking and womanizing, and widespread amphetamine use, but for whatever foibles he revealed in his colleagues, Bouton spends at least as much time lampooning himself.

 

Like when he got called back up to the Major leagues, after a brief stint with the minor league Vancouver Mounties. 

I was back with the Seattle Pilots. Not only that, but I had an hour-and-a-half to get my ass to the clubhouse and into uniform. Not only that, right after the game we’re going on a road trip, first stop Minneapolis. Not only that, my suitcase has gone on ahead to Vancouver. Not only that, my hang-up suit bag is up there too and doesn’t even have my name on it. Not only that, I’m inordinately happy.

Or the time a fan asked…

“Hey Jim, how do you pitch to Frank Robinson?” I told him the truth. “Reluctantly,” I said

Even Bouton’s wife was not off-limits.

My wife actually believes that it’s possible, through concentration, to transfer strength from one person to another. She believes that during the game she transferred her strength to me and I pitched well. She is, of course, a nut.

I think the worst thing he did was to scuff a few hero images. In Bouton’s words…

I think we are all better off looking across at someone, rather than up.

Ironically, although Bouton’s tell-all baseball expose was the first, it wasn’t the last and some of the things he revealed about the Baseball heroes that angered them, like Mickey Mantle’s fondness for beer — GASP! — the players would later admit themselves in their own memoirs. Mick actually had a pretty decent post-baseball career selling Miller Lite. And Ball Four can hardly be considered “tell-all”. Pretty tame by today’s standards.

 

But he was pariah, and his baseball career would only last one more season, 1970. Not counting a short-lived, largely unsuccessful comeback with the Atlanta Braves in 1978.

 

Bouton’s career began in 1962 with the New York Yankees, culminating in a World Series championship. His rookie campaign was followed by two fantastic seasons in 63 and 64 (21 and 18 wins respectively), and the Yanks losing in the World Series both years. His performance tapered off after this, and led to his eventual trade to the expansion Seattle Pilots. Most of Ball Four covers that 1969 season with the Pilots, and late season trade to the Houston Astros. He played one more season with the Astros. In his initial seasons with the Yankees, Bouton had the normal arsenal: fastball, curve, change-up, etc. But by 68 he had lost the fastball, and was almost exclusively a knuckleballer. A knuckleball is not thrown hard, but it has little or no spin and moves erratically, making it difficult to hit.

 

The 1969 season of the Seattle Pilots, was their one-and-only season. The franchise then moved and became the Milwaukee Brewers. Seattle did not get another MLB franchise until 1977 when the Seattle Mariners debuted.

 

The 50th Anniversary Edition includes several updates: 10 years later, 20 years later, and 30 years later. There was no 40-year update. The updates are mostly about Bouton’s life after baseball, and the fallout he still dealt with over the book. He was never invited to Yankees Old-Timer Days, until 1998, when a letter from Bouton’s son Michael, on Father’s Day, to the New York Times admonished the Yankees to let bygones be bygones. The Yanks acquiesced and Bouton called it the best Father’s Day present ever. A perfect ending.

 

Read Michael's letter to the NY Times HERE. 

 

Jim Bouton died in 2019, the 50th anniversary of his year with the Seattle Pilots. At the time of his death, Ball Four was one of the best-selling sports books ever.

 

.