I watched the animated movie based on this book when I was a child, and I loved it. I distinctly remember watching it at least twice each day for a period of about a week, and each time, when the movie ended, I felt like crying. (Remember, I was only five or six at the time.) Recently, I rewatched the movie. I liked it again, of course, but I could see why somebody else who did not have the memories I had of the film might find parts of it ridiculous or incoherent.

I had the same experience reading the book. I hadn't read the book when I was a child, so I had no specific memories attached to any part of it. Sure enough, I found Beagle's novel somewhat...barren.

For one thing, you get the sense that there is almost nobody in Beagle's world. For example, in King Haggard's castle, there are only eight people--including three men-at-arms--and a cat. Notice that I didn't say that there were only eight important people. There are only eight people even mentioned. Is the rest of the castle empty, then? (The answer seems to be yes.) Who runs the country? Who is in Haggard's country, anyway? Perhaps Beagle deliberately set out to make Haggard's kingdom seem barren, but the country's emptiness nagged constantly at my attention.

The plot also doesn't hold together very well. Events just seem to materialize out of thin air instead of leading off one another. Right in the beginning, there is a singing butterfly. It sings and reveals important plot points, then flies away. Huh? At another point, the lone cat in the castle talks, when before all it did was walk around and purr. There is no indication that this is a talking cat; indeed, immediately after its lengthy spiel (providing more important plot points), it falls silent again. And then everybody talks to a skull. I mean, as Orson Scott Card wrote, the important thing about writing fantasy is that your fantasy world has to have rules. There's no suspense, and hence no interest, if the reader cannot form expectations that the author will respect. But Beagle's freeform fantasy violates Card's principle--he does, indeed, seem to be just whipping things out of thin air because he can.

Of course, perhaps this is intentional. Many people seem to like Beagle just because of the inventiveness of his fantasy, consistency be damned.

It's not all bad news. Beagle's writing is clear and, at times, poetic. His depictions of the characters (except when they slip into annoying meta-analyses of their own situations as fictional characters) are vibrant and plausible. The unicorn's feeling of immortality and Lir's heartsickness are especially well done, as is Haggard's loneliness. Ultimately, however, I can only recommend this book highly to children, who will ignore Beagle's inconsistencies and delve head-first into his lyrical fantasy world.

UPDATE: (09/8/01) I recently received this email from my brother, Frank, disagreeing with my point of view. He writes: "I have to at least argue against your analysis of the Last Unicorn. I notice that you complain about the lack of coherency to the Last Unicorn's plot. Things seem to happen out of thin air. However, let me remind you that the Last Unicorn takes place in a world of high fantasy. As such, many mystical, inexplicable happenings are SUPPOSED to happen. Also (since your analysis of the Last Unicorn seems to be about the same as Thomas Covenant's), let me remind you of what you may have felt while reading it (at least this is what I felt). The Last Unicorn felt magical. The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant felt dull. I was traveling with a noble, if haughty creature in search of her fellow beings. Thomas Covenant was a feeble, annoying person in search of nothing at all."

Copyright © 2001 Steven Wu