Smugglers’ Ponderings: On the Peter Grant Series by Ben Aaronovitch

kindle-aholic

I went through much of Moon Over Soho thinking, “Peter is an idiot.” And he is. He has a LOT to learn. His mentor has been operating under the delusion that magic is waning. This is their wake-up call.

I also spent the book thinking, “Peter needs Leslie.” He absolutely can’t do this by himself. He has a Dumbledore, but no Ron & Hermione. The last lines of the book made me want to read book 3.

I like that he has a lot of learning to do. He is so far from perfect, but I did feel some progression, defintely enough that I want to continue reading. I still have to get to book 3.

I also love the many PoC characters. There is a short passage that I read just as all of the SFWA mess hit twitter that did resonate:

“‘Just to satisfy my curiosity, you understand,’ said Nightingale, ‘given that the only people ever likely to hear us say the words black magician are you, me, and Dr. Walid, why is changing them so important?’

‘Because I don’t think the old world’s coming back anytime soon,’ I said. ‘In fact, I think the new world might be arriving.'” – Moon Over Soho, Ben Aaronovitch

Lizzie B

I have the exact opposite reactions – I loved Book 2 and thought Book 3 was a bit meh. I wasn’t a fan of mole people who made pottery.

I loved that he shut down the magical resetting of Leslie’s face, which shows the audience that magic isn’t a get-out clause and characters are going to suffer, which I think are important points to make. And it means that we don’t spend time on a magical quest to heal Leslie – she has to deal, Peter has to deal and the reader has to deal with a favourite character suffering pain and disfigurement. It means that Peter has to grow as a character and it adds another element to Leslie’s attitude to magic that I’m sure will play out in future books. I think it was a bold and completely understandable choice where hope could have prevented her from learning to live in the world again.

Anonymous

Yes, I can understand how the lack of agency this gives Leslie is problematic (he could have at least given her the choice) but I also think that his actions stem from his guilt and over-protectiveness of Leslie. He doesn’t want to mislead her and send her on a quest for something that may not help, and he also wants to save her from pain, black magic and other issues that might go along with wanting a magical cure. I think it’s a human decision and while one that is flawed, is justifiable in the context of the character.

Peter is one of my fave characters in Urban Fantasy and it’s his reactions to both weird and human issues that really sell the world in the books. I’m so looking forward to reading the fourth in the series – and I very much adore Ben Aaronovitch for not giving in and allowing TV companies to buy the books and make Peter white.

Ben Aaronovitch

Authors commenting on reviews is usually a mistake but…

First a couple of points of fact (or fictional fact)…
I don’t think Lesley has ever kissed Peter.
Peter didn’t know about the various hybrids when he talked to Lesley in Moon Over Soho.

I ask you to look beyond the META – ie: who is and who isn’t a love interest and consider Peter and Lesley as characters.

At the start of Rivers of London Peter has known Lesley for two and a half years, is it really conceivable that he hasn’t noticed that it’s not recipricated?

Does Lesley strike you as the kind of person who would put up with constant unwanted sexual advances from a colleague let alone a friend?

Lesley has seen enough of Peter’s love life to have formed an opinion so obviously Peter has had girlfriends during that period.

Is it really so far fetched that both of them know that they’re always going friends and work colleagues and not have a sexual relationship. She doesn’t fancy him, he knows that, he’s had two and a half years to get used to the idea.

Back in the mists of time when this was TV series pitch Peter was a black woman and Lesley was her white female counterpart. Her role in the story was that of rival, the friend who makes it look all so easy.

When, for a number of reasons, I changed Peter to a guy I left Lesley as a woman because otherwise there would be too many guys (I already had Nightingale, Dr Walid and Seawoll by that point).

Now in hindsight throwing in a couple of lines where Peter fancies Lesley was probably where I went wrong but I underestimated the power of the UST partner trope.

I also miscalculated in that I believe now that had Peter remained a woman Lesley would have been less popular as a character.

Still those who are broken and dissapointed all I can say is I’m sorry. To all of those who are sticking with Peter I hope you enjoy the next book.

Yours: Ben Aaronovitch

Ben Aaronovitch

I’m sorry you feel I was trying to enforce anything on you the META was because in small caps it looked like a typo.

I wasn’t critiquing you review particularly, apart from the snogging obviouslym I was using it as a spring board for a discussion.

The bit about ‘unwanted sexual advances’ was me talking about how their relationship must have, after 2 and half years, reached an equilibtrium.

Yes it is your perogative to read a text however you like and it is my perogative to talk about what my intentions were. I’m sorry you think I was trying to impose myself and I’m sorry to lose you as a reader.

Ben Aaronovitch

‘Ben – No, just no, stop now before it’s too late.’

So now she tells me. Lesson learnt.

Emily

Not for nothing, but it really is a shame if an author can’t post any sort of response to a review without getting attacked. Yes, some authors do go mental on negative reviews. But this was hardly some huge rant. He wasn’t rude or condescending, it seemed like he was simply trying to explain his own intentions.

Susan

Ana, I’ve read the whole exchange between everyone and even tweets outside your blog. I’m compelled to side with readers who would welcome interaction of reviewer and author. Both add to the insight to a book I’m about to read or have read. Dialogue is the name of the game. I’ve read your blog and have taken your advice on books to read. If you don’t want interaction I suggest you adjust your settings accordingly or post a big red STOP sign for authors. An author might find it prudent NOT to answer to criticism and that’s fine. In your case, I found the author wanting to open a dialogue as compliment to your hard work. Your rebuff was too quick. I can relate to this. We often become defensive when our work is questioned and an author understands this well.
In my opinion, it is sad to cut dialogue off at the knees in an avenue where the written/spoken word is king. Without an author, book reviews wouldn’t be needed and without book reviewer, readers might miss an interesting book by a new/old author. Both should exist in this Internet world with respect.
Yes, it’s only my opinion.
Keep on reading!

Jason

I don’t think it was wrong for Peter to not give Leslie false hope that her injuries can be fixed. He’s a complete novice, so it’s probably for the best that he doesn’t talk about things he knows very little about. Nightingale, the expert, hasn’t yet attempted to heal Leslie’s face, or even mentioned the possibility, so I think we can assume that A) it can’t be done, or B) it’s too advanced for Nightingale, and by extension, way too advanced for Peter.

Personally, I like the descriptions of the various locations in the series, as I’m familiar, it makes the story feel more…real in my mind (yes, I do realise they’re fantasy). Given his age, and where he grew up, Peter Grant could almost be someone I know. His old school is literally across the road from one of my former teenage hangouts.

RE the whole “male gaze” thing, it didn’t really bother me. Cop or not, Peter is still a guy. He’s constantly being told by other characters that he’s too easily distracted, so it fits.

Edward Champion

As someone who marched with thousands in New York last night, only to return home tired to have my opinions on the George Zimmerman verdict misperceived by a few readers, I’m no stranger to being annoyed by other people’s opinions. However, I was grateful for the challenge, which caused me to clarify my opinion on “stand your ground” cases and continue a dialogue.

I haven’t read Ben Aaronovitch’s books. I’m only familiar with his work on old school Doctor Who. But I am appalled by the entitlement and hostility that has followed his appearance. Yes, it is true that you have the right to your reading interpretation. But if you’re not mature enough to have a conversation with someone you disagree with, then why on earth are you bothering to communicate with other people? The world doesn’t revolve around your opinions. Real thinkers disagree, listen, clarify, and adjust their viewpoints in response to what others have to say. This is what’s known as having a dialogue, something which the commenters in this thread appear to be largely incapable of.

Emily

Of course authors should post their opinions on reviews/essays of their books. I totally agree with that. And I think that it’s fine for authors to post on even negative reviews/essays. If you’re talking about interpretations, the author, “while you may have interpreted it this way, I had written it so readers can interpret it THIS way.” Now that is fine. What is NOT fine is when an author says, “You HAVE to interpret it this way and that is that.” When reading, a reader can interpret something the way they want to.
As for the whole romance thing…
I have not read the series, so I didn’t really read the post detailed in case of spoilers. HOWEVER, if there are references to a slight romance with the two protagonists, then by all means readers can ship that couple. But arguing about romance–which will somehow make you “right” and the reader “wrong”–is not going to advocate your statement when the post has nothing to do with romance. But even if the post DID, if the author’s intention is different from the reader’s interpretation, then SO BE IT!! The reader reads and understands as the reader reads and understands. Wow, that sentence gave me a headache. Sorry ’bout that 😉
Anyway, all in all, you can’t force the “right” way to read a book because there simply isn’t. Every reader in this world is different, and you can’t force them to all think the same.

Stephen Deas

I found your review quite hysterical…

Stop right there, reader of this comment! Do it! What assumption have you jumped to? Do I mean “really really funny” or do I mean “emotionally overblown”?

That’s a fictional example, a random statement not related to anything that’s been said here, designed entirely to trick you into jumping through a hoop for me. Had it been a real comment, the only person who really would have known what I meant is me but most people who read it would jump to an assumption one way or another. We are horribly ambiguous when we talk to each other face to face but we get away with it because we have intonation and body language to help us.

I personally think authors should interact on-line with reviewers but that both sides are well advised to tread carefully. Someone who runs a blog will naturally tend to think of their blog as “home turf” and an author coming to comment on a review might do well to imagine themselves as a guest in the blogger’s home. Bloggers who run public review sites would do well to remember that a blog is generally *not* see as their front room by everyone else but a public place.

It’s probably not possible to say anything at all lengthy and meaningful without leaving oneself open to interpretation. To have any sort of useful debate on the internet, it seems, one must be aware that one may both be misinterpreted and misinterpret, that people may be offended by something one thought innocuous because they read it a different way or vice versa. You have to (one has to – I don’t mean a specific you) constantly challenge the assumptions your making about what people say.

I didn’t read Ben’s response, for example, as telling you, Ana, that you were wrong, but I do personally read an edge of frustration there (“Is it really so far fetched…” just those few words) and I can see how that might colour my own reaction if I was in your shoes. But that’s just me; and how I (or anyone else) interprets what he said has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of how you felt or feel about it. All it does is shows there’s more than one interpretation of the words. One thing struck me though: Ben says “I ask you to…” Ana’s response (“…trying to enforce…”, “…being told…”) does not strike me the response of someone who *feels* they have been politely asked to consider something, even if that was the original intent (which I don’t know, of course).

And I’d suggest maybe you should challenge your assumptions about what he meant but then we’re in the place where a man is telling a woman “have you considered that maybe you’re wrong” so let’s not go there. I’ll challenge mine for a bit longer.

Which all just goes to show what a minefield it is when an author starts commenting on a reviewer’s blog…

Edward, I agree with you that conversations are about listening to opinions, seeking clarification, challenging ones own assumptions and those of others and I’ll throw in being polite. If you don’t see the name-calling: your first comment, par 2, line 5 – to my eyes you basically called her immature.

Stephen Deas

I was trying to be careful with that last comment. Reading back over it, I think I see at least two grenades I accidentally dropped. Maybe it’s just easier if we don’t talk. 🙁

Janine Ballard

I love this series. Even Moon Over Soho. I did think it was odd for Peter to advise his father to join the jazz band, but a friend of mine has suggested (and I think it’s possible) that Peter was under Simone’s spell and this influenced him to do things he would normally know better than to do.

With regard to Leslie and magic, that didn’t bother me much because magic poses a special risk to Lesley, since she was exposed to so much of it in Midnight Riot/Rivers of London, and further exposure, unless limited, could endanger her life.

What you call info-dumps never strike me that way because they are so often witty and or/startling. In fact I love the passage you quote here. I love “five-story bastard child” and “completely gutted and replaced with the set of Logan’s Run.” Both descriptions are funny, unexpected and create images in my head. And Aaronovitch achieves this consistently, something that can’t be said about many writers. To learn about history in such an entertaining is like being given a gift.

I saw Peter’s description of the “frumpy” Simone as inappropriate too, but I put it down to the author describing a character so readers could have some visual of her, and establishing Peter’s attraction, which will play a role in the story, upfront. It’s pretty standard for writers to do something like this when a major character appears on stage.

I agree that it’s problematic in this instance — she just lost her boyfriend and Peter is a police officer informing her of his death.

On the other hand, one could say that there is a reason why he is so attracted to her like this and that is due to her background and history. Is this because he is a flawed character or is this internalised sexism in the narative?

A little of each, I thought.

Because it DOES just fits with the way that the narrative treats female characters, especially the ones that have a private, personal relationship with Peter. Most of these female characters end up dead, hurt or deprived of their freedom and I have the feeling those are there in the interest of man-pain.

You may be on to something there but I’ll play devil’s advocate — don’t several male characters end up dead or injured, too? And that includes Seawoll and Nightingale, which causes Peter man-pain too. And his dad’s life is threatened, too. So while I think it’s possible you’re right, I’m not fully convinced yet.

For me, the most questionable aspect of these books, sexism wise, was the appearance of the vagina dentata. I really disliked that, but I appreciated that the vagina dentata character was treated as a human being deserving of dignity.

And this is where I go back to being conflicted, the books do feature interesting, well-written female characters who are independent from Peter’s storylines

Yes. And you haven’t mentioned that there are a number of PoC characters and characters from other cultures. Aaronovitch’s London truly is diverse.

I agree that Peter is immature, but I wouldn’t quite say superficial. I was frustated for a good chunk of the first book that we didn’t get more about Peter’s emotions, but by the end of the book, there was more and there has been enough since then to keep me satisfied. I think Peter is a typical guy in that he doesn’t like to talk about his feelings, but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t have feelings.

In book 3, it is soon after his girlfriend has died and there is not a single reference to that tragedy.

I thought there were one or two vague reference to it, but it’s been long enough that I can’t be sure. However, I never saw Simone as Peter’s girlfriend. To me they were both just in it for the sex (and Simone had ulterior motives for that as we later learn). Peter hadn’t known Simone long when she died (didn’t the whole book span a few weeks at most?) and he also realized he hadn’t known who she was at all. He treated her death with solemnity and sorrow that he couldn’t save her, but I never expected him to grieve.

Lesley trying to snog Peter happened when she was drunk, and she did it because she (understandably) longed to feel attractive and knew Peter had been attracted to her. And Peter knew she would not do it under normal circumstances, and did not want to take advantage of her. It was a very human and humane moment that really touched me. IMO it wasn’t referenced later because neither one wanted to acknowledge it or remember it.

I am torn between interpreting this as a mixture of typical British stoicism and the characters own youth (he is still learning after all) written on purpose like that or just inadequate character writing.

I really think it’s the former, not the latter. I adore Peter as a character. I love the way he fumbles, makes human mistakes and is vulnerable unlike the male characters in most of the other books I read.

In any case, I always feel I just want more reaction of any kind from Peter and I never get it.

As I say, I felt that way for a good chunk of the first book and then I got over it. It no longer bothers me at all; I just think this is who Peter is, and there are just enough emotions to keep me turning the pages.

I typically read romance and female oriented YA, so I’m used to more emotion than I get from Peter, but I think most guys don’t like to talk about/analyze their feelings so to me Peter feels more like an authentically male character and less like a figment of female fantasy than the male characters I usually encounter.

Stephen Deas

Hi Ana,

Yes, I chose the word because I know it carries that baggage that will generate an extremely hostile mindset in some people and I think (hope) that it’s widely enough known for doing so that to some extent it makes my point for me.

My aim was to trigger an assumption in whoever read my comment and then to have them realise what they’d done. So I hope you have well and truly jumped through my hoop.

Suzanne

“Where in my previous comment did I call anyone names?”

Well, you did imply that the (largely female) commentariat on this thread were “immature” and not “real thinkers.” I’D call that name-calling, but then again, I’m probably not “mature” and a “real thinker” like you, Edward!
(Always nice to have a “real thinker” on board)

“I’m wondering, Ana, if belligerence is the emotion you summon when your viewpoints are challenged.”

I’m wondering, Edward, if you’re not playing into the misogynistic trope that women who express opinions are automatically “belligerent” and “hysterical” and “angry.” Or that “belligerence” is automatically a reason to disregard someone’s comment (especially a woman’s comment, since men’s anger is warranted and objective, while women’s anger is axiomatically invalidating).

“If you’re not mature enough to have a conversation with someone you disagree with, then why on earth are you bothering to communicate with other people?”

See, there’s that name-calling again!
Also, I’m pretty sure that Ana is having a conversation with you, and with Ben Aarnovitch right now. So your point does not stand.

David Burton

Hi all, this is my first post …probably my last judging by the undercurrent of hostility that seems to be flowing through this post, but here goes… I personally am extremely pleased that Ben commented on the review and I see it as a huge compliment to a blogger/reviewer whenever an author takes time out to read their work and like the author themselves they have to be open to some critique. Unfortunately I find it very difficult to read this particular discussion as it seems critique is only allowed to flow one way and that a lot of the offence caused seems to be rooted ways away from the book and in some personal and social grievances. A Man is allowed to ask a woman to listen to his opinion without dragging years of oppression and misogyny into the request, it’s how we communicated… In a school if a teacher were to ask a student of a different ethnicity, Faith or nationality to listen and to not talk in class, did that teacher force years of oppression on them and dismiss their right to a voice or just address the situation at hand without having to look to the past and consider if what they are about to say could have an impact on something that happened in the annals of time. Ben asked you/us to consider an opinion, that’s it, if we choose to fine, if we choose not to fine, that’s where it ends, It is just a book and Ben (with all due respect) is just an author, it or he never stopped my mother from voting, never organised slavery or invaded another country or oppressed my right to be a 30 something gay man living in a conservative catholic community… as far as I’m aware. I have probably managed to offend everybody in some way with this post, but the worst part about it is I don’t actually know if I have, which just goes to show that there may not have been any intentions to offend when ben posted his response. it’s just far too easy to sit at a keyboard and never have to look the other person in the eye and see how they are affected by what you say and how they are really feeling and I don’t aim this at anyone on here but it’s so easy to type “fag” it’s just three little letters… didn’t hurt, world hasn’t ended, life goes on but how many people do you think would say that straight to someone’s face and look them in the eye… it’s a whole lot harder. Anyway thank you for the platform allowing me to put out my diatribe and if I have offended you I am very sorry… I just had an hour to kill in work and got carried away 🙂

David Burton

…And “fag ” was just a safe example becuase it refered to myself and it was not based on any comment on this blog… I’m done! Oh one more thing, I do really like the site btw.

Emily

@J.D. Smith
What?
Almost everyone is having a fair conversation. No one is bullying anyone here. And if you really think they are overreacting, you’re NOT GOING TO READ FEMALE AUTHORS? And oh, the FEMALE COMMENTS ARE THE BAD ONES. REALLY. Not any of the male ones? I just cannot process that through my head. It is just so wrong I don’t know where to start.

Jim Rae

For me, the 2nd was (perhaps) the weakest, in that I agree to a certain extent. However, there is an issue which has been somewhat overlooked. A good author tends to develop their characters (particularly in a series). It’d therefore be rather odd, IMO, if Peter had come out a completely ‘Fully-Rounded’ character from chapter 1?

I’m not trying to be facetious or insulting, but some of the comments remind me of the difficulty in defining dwarf gender in Pratchett’s ‘Going Postal’ or calling a Golem Gladys so she can clean the toilets in the same book.

As for the Trocadero reference – I saw this monstrosity for the first time in decades around a year ago and it reminded me of something – Aaronovitch’s description was on the button. Info-Dumping? Naw, i’d call it background…

Gerd D.

Re: Info-dumping, I felt like I was reading a review for Dan Brown, because he does much the same.
Always made me go “Why would you tell me this now…”, which is never a good reaction to a story while you’re reading it.

Reader

Reading these posts I am amazed how much ego people have tied up in their on line identity. A revealing mirror, and quite funny. Personally I read books for enjoyment. In the interests of plot development I understand there will be the requisite character flaws in the protagonists. Plots require motives. All problems will not be tidily resolved by magical means. I don’t do some sort of weird count for ethnic diversity and gender equality, but of course a book populated by people of varied backgrounds and with well rounded characters of both sexes is a more interesting read. As a woman I am a bit embarrassed that some contributors don’t like the treatment of women in this series. I thought Lesley and Miriam, and all those bossy Goddesses had Peter on the back step. And I love stoic Englishmen who can’t express their emotions, a much better read than people who always talk about their feelings. Yuk. That psycho babble is strictly for books with no plot to fill the pages. Obviously reading is a very personal experience- but I loved this series by Ben Aaronovitch. I like science with my magic, and loved the history and architecture. He’d better hurry up and write the next one. I need something to read, with a plot!

Missh

Wow, I’m late to all the hoopla 😉 but it’s almost funny reading all this after reading books 4, 5 and 6.

I don’t know if you have kept reading, but I feel like many of points raised have been resolved and then some. I love these books for the many strong and independent female characters.