The Folk of the Air

Peter S. Beagle has a way with prose that makes my heart hurt. His descriptions have a vividness to them that makes you feel, and that's why even though this isn't my favorite of his stories, I still feel better for reading it. Saying this isn't my favorite Peter S. Beagle story is kind of like saying chocolate isn't my favorite donut. Doesn't mean I can't enjoy it to pieces anyway.

“The Folk of the Air” deals a lot with time and a lot with transience. From the LARPers at their tourneys, getting swept up in their own personal RennFaires to Ben's inability to talk about Egil in the past tense, all of time is a bit wonky in this book, an aspect I found refreshing. Farrell himself is an odd character, and I related to his, “Yup... I'm a grown up ... living in my 80th place with no discernible idea of what I'm doing with the rest of my life.” Still, I thought he lacked a lot of agency in the story. He's our protagonist because he attracts crazies, and is thus the only one willing to remember the bizarre events for what they really are. So, he's not the most interesting or active character which made for a slow start until the other characters started moving.

The antagonists in this story are fantastic. Never ever give a fifteen year old Mean Girl supernatural powers because this is exactly what would happen. Aiffe is cruel in the way only the truly self-absorbed can be and Nicholas Bonner is a subtly threatening puppeteer who always made me nervous despite moving very little himself. They are probably my favorite aspect of the whole story.

It doesn't beat “Last Unicorn” or “A Fine and Private Place” for me, but it's still a wonderful read for anyone who loves elegant style and LARPing gone wild.

I loved it. A magical book done pretty much right. Beagle deserves his status as best-fantasy-author-that-you-think-everybody-should-know-about-and-love-but-really-it-seems-nobody-has-ever-heard-of-him-and-how-weird-is-that-?.

I do object to the attempt to materialize and de-mystify the whole thing (one deity says to another “Remember, we aren't real.”). But stories don't matter if they aren't true, if we are always distancing ourselves from them to remind ourselves, “This isn't true, don't forget.” Adam and Eve is meaningful only if it is taken to be true. King Arthur is relevant only if true. Yes, it is quite possible to understand–with the part of my brain that drives a car and goes shopping–that dragons aren't real, and I know that if I went back in a time machine 6000 years I would not see a man named Adam and a woman named Eve anywhere, but if the story isn't real in a meaningful way, it is just meaningless. I feel that way about the deities and especially the deity who is a main character in this book. When Beagle reminded me, via dialogue, that they were not real, it made the whole book harder to enter into.

But other than that, which is a complaint I make against many other authors–especially writers about myth and Bible criticism–I loved this book.