I'm definitely attached to Christopher. But the difference between this and The Magicians of Caprona is that the latter has much less Chrestomanci in it, and when he shows up, he's there basically to serve the protagonists' agenda. In this book, he's around almost from the start, and has his own goal he's pursuing (i.e. rescuing Millie), that takes up a goodly portion of the book but only involves Conrad tangentially.
Mind you, I'm definitely being critical when I say that. It's harder for me not to be critical these days; I see stuff too much with a writer's eye. But for the most part it doesn't get in the way of me enjoying the enjoyable stuff, if that makes sense, so I don't mind (too much).
That's true. I almost wonder whether I don't find it annoying because as a child I was often very much like Conrad - following someone else, being downtrodden, etc. And I found the Stallery subplots much more interesting than the Millie one.
I know what you mean re: being critical/writer's eye, but I think maybe in this case it's more personal preference than a flaw in the actual writing? (Although criticism is generally based on personal preference anyway.) I'd be interested to see what you write about House of Many Ways and the Game, which to me are quite weak (especially the former!). I probably forgive DWJ's earlier books because they have emotional significance for me, whereas I find a lot of her most recent work a bit clunky. Have you noticed that?
I wouldn't go so far as to say it's annoying; just that it doesn't hook me as intensely as a different approach might. And yeah, it does kind of map a bit to earlier books vs. later ones; I can't be sure how much of that has to do with when I read them, but I think a lot of her strongest work, at least in structural terms, was on the earlier side. (She's always been able to turn a great phrase and make up really vivid characters.)
Mind you, I'm definitely being critical when I say that. It's harder for me not to be critical these days; I see stuff too much with a writer's eye. But for the most part it doesn't get in the way of me enjoying the enjoyable stuff, if that makes sense, so I don't mind (too much).
I know what you mean re: being critical/writer's eye, but I think maybe in this case it's more personal preference than a flaw in the actual writing? (Although criticism is generally based on personal preference anyway.) I'd be interested to see what you write about House of Many Ways and the Game, which to me are quite weak (especially the former!). I probably forgive DWJ's earlier books because they have emotional significance for me, whereas I find a lot of her most recent work a bit clunky. Have you noticed that?