Inkspell

#12
Title: Inkspell

Author: Cornelia Funke
Publisher: Scholastic
Year: 2005
Genre: Children’s/Fantasy

640 pages

+ Worldbuilding, competent female protagonist, interesting details

- Flat characters, deus ex machina, continuity/plot concerns

It took me a long time to get through Inkspell, and not because it was over 600 pages. Rather, I found bothInkspell and the first volume in this apparent trilogy, Inkheart, flat and clunky. This is “children’s literature” of the sort that makes the Harry Potter books so compelling by comparison: Where Rowling escapes her genre, Funke is firmly entrenched in it. Funke shows what she can do for about a hundred pages—roughly, pages 200-300 in the hardback Scholastic edition. However, whatever it is that illuminates a tale soon goes missing again.

The plot itself is fine so far as it goes: Events unfold (though I don’t see much character growth) and complications arise. However, characterization and character development (such as it is) is broadly and badly drawn and relies on one or two details about each character that are repeatedly asserted. I can live with this, though I’m surprised Funke can’t do better. What it means, though is that the characters are 1-dimensional; since the conceit of this series is bringing books alive, the lack of vibrant characterization is particularly problematic and intrudes on the reader’s suspension of disbelief.

More troublingly, Funke does not resolve two problems from Inkheart that contributed greatly to my disappointment with plotting in that book, and contribute several apparent continuity oversights in Inkspell. I’m going to be specific, so don’t read on if you don’t want to hear about events toward the end of both books.

Toward the end of Inkheart, Meggie reads Fenoglio’s pages, concluding, “and all those who had gone burning and murdering with him disappeared” (p. 510, Scholastic paperback edition). There are two consequences to this that trouble me: 1) When Meggie banishes the Shadow, Fenoglio disappears, presumably into the book. This is a man with a family whose disappearance occasions no more comment than “there’s nothing we can do about it” (p. 514) and Meggie’s awareness that he would miss his grandchildren (519). By contrast, Resa’s disappearance into the book many years before has been a source of agony to her family and drives much of the emotional narrative here. The lack of concern for, or subsequent energy spent on, Fenoglio’s disappearance makes this book deeply immoral and is the only real reason that I would not supply it to a child. The second problem related to this event is that Basta does not die with the rest of Capricorn’s men: “And indeed, why wasn’t he [dead]?" (p. 516). A shouting match ensues about why Basta isn’t dead, and his answer is “How should I know?” (516). I withheld judgment about this until I finished Inkspell. Since this question went utterly unaddressed, I will now say that for an author to pull this sort of suspension of the rules of her own universe to move her plot along is deus ex machina of the worst sort. If the reader can’t trust the book’s own internal logic, dramatic tension is lost and the resolution can hardly be satisfying.

Indeed, deus ex machina rears its head at various points in Inkspell, in most cases through the stratagem of someone remembering something s/he had forgotten (that the reader did not know about) or suddenly revealing a secret (that has not been previously hinted at). Hinting is, in fact, not Funke’s strong suit; when she introduces a new comment or detail about a character or locale, look for it to be a requirement of the plot shortly thereafter.

Not to spoil the major dramatic moment of Inkspell, but it was dragged off-course for me by my preoccupation with the details of the book made for the Adderhead. There is a discussion about the poor quality of the paper; later, a point is raised about scraping something off a page. I thought, “Huh. You can scrape ink off parchment, but can you really scrape ink off paper?” Apparently not, because at the next description of the book, the page that is scraped is described as parchment. Later, it’s described as paper again. I don’t care one way or another, except that a) this is sloppy writing; b) the reader has been told earlier that Meggie abhors the slaughter of goats for hides to make either book covers or parchment (I can't remember which), and a 500-page book would require killing around 250 goats according to the math used earlier in the book; and c) the Adderhead is clearly superstitious and meticulous. He would not provide inferior paper for the book. In addition, he would not propose or agree to the writing/scraping activity that occurs due to the fear that an error would be introduced into the text and hence the process. This is why errors in Torah scrolls can't just be scraped clean.

Between the poor characterization, the clunky language (some of it a translation problem if the complex tenses are any indication), the small but distracting errors, and the large and troubling moral and plot issues, I found Inkspell an unsatisfactory book and a disappointing follow up (or lack of follow up) to the problems raised by Inkheart. I’ll probably read the next one because I always hope an author will manage to pull the loose ends together, but I’m not hopeful.

Nitpick: It annoys me that there are presumably unrelated characters named Mortimer and Mortola.

Nitpick: The German title was Tintenblut, or Inkblood. The English language publishers should have retained this title, which is both more accurate and a better parallel to Tintenhertz, Inkheart.

If you enjoy books where the “real” world of the book intersects with “literary” worlds within other books, try Jasper Fforde’s Tuesday Next books (beginning with The Eyre Affair) instead. If you like books about how it's a problem to tamper with reality by manipulating a symbolic analogue, you will be better served by Le Guin’sThe Lathe of Heaven. On the other hand, plenty of people rate this book very highly. If the writing and moral issues I've identified don't bother you, have at it.