Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell

[SDNess]

Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell
by Susanna Clarke

It seems we may have the next Harry Potter in the making. I read a review in Time magazine, which said the novel is excellent and very original.

Amazon

[ravenus]

The next Harry Potter. IS that a good thing now?

[I, Brian]

What an albatross to work with! Too much expectation, methinks. After all, Harry Potter was the next...?

[knivesout]

I have read a bit about this book - take it from me, the 'next Harry Potter' tag is mere vapid marketing-exec talk that you can safely ingore. The book was niether concieved nor written as a children's novel, and it seems intriguing enough without egregious comparisons tacked on. It's a bit like the famous rock-biz hype, 'the next Elvis', 'the next Beatles', 'the next Dylan' yada yada. A friend of mine got hold of this book and says it seems good. Here's the official website of the book: http://www.jonathanstrange.com/
I think you'll find it seems promising enough, while bearing little resemblance to Ms. Rowling's work.

[rune]

Originally Posted by knivesout

I have read a bit about this book - take it from me, the 'next Harry Potter' tag is mere vapid marketing-exec talk that you can safely ingore. The book was niether concieved nor written as a children's novel, and it seems intriguing enough without egregious comparisons tacked on. It's a bit like the famous rock-biz hype, 'the next Elvis', 'the next Beatles', 'the next Dylan' yada yada. A friend of mine got hold of this book and says it seems good. Here's the official website of the book: http://www.jonathanstrange.com/
I think you'll find it seems promising enough, while bearing little resemblance to Ms. Rowling's work.

Thanks for posting the link, I thought it looked really interesting and will be looking out for that. You never know I may find a new favourite author

[rune]

I've just got my hands on this book today from my Library. The first thing that struck me was the size of the thing. The 2nd is the annoying footnotes They are getting on my nerves.

[Teresa Edgerton]

I am still trying to decide whether to buy this book or not -- it sounds very intriguing, but mixed reviews and the high price of hardbacks are making me hesitate. (No use depending on the library for me. Our local library system has a long, long waiting list.) It would be interesting to hear what you think of it, rune, as you get further in.

[rune]

I had to give up on this book, it was too slow paced for me. I hated the numerous footnotes and I couldnt click with Clarke's writing style

[Teresa Edgerton]

Phooey. So now I'm still undecided.

When you say numerous footnotes, do you mean like footnotes on every page? Another book with footnotes, "The Amulet of Samarkand" I found pretty annoying, but I'm not opposed footnotes on principle.

[rune]

Originally Posted by Kelpie

Phooey. So now I'm still undecided.

When you say numerous footnotes, do you mean like footnotes on every page? Another book with footnotes, "The Amulet of Samarkand" I found pretty annoying, but I'm not opposed footnotes on principle.

Not on all the pages, but some of the footnotes too up most of a page

I also thought it was a telling story style and not a show, which is pretty bad for todays authors

[knivesout]

Footnotes can be fun though - Jack Vance uses them to good effect in his sf novels, and Jasper Fforde does some very interesting things with them. Ideally, they add a touch of enjoyable imaginary pedantery to a fictional book.

[BandSmurf]

I haven't gotten to read this yet, but one of my friends (an English major I respect) thought this was the best book he's read in a very very long time, so I can't wait to get my hands on a copy.

As for footnotes, lol, don't go near Terry Pratchett's stuff, especially Good Omens with Neil Gaiman if you don't like them. Personally, I do!

~BandSmurf

[ltbrown]

I'm enchanted by this haunting book. She writes in a mannered quasi-Austenian style as a subtle technique to imbue the work with an eeriness and otherworldliness that I'm finding very compelling. In other words, she isn't just imitating the 19th-Century style for the sake of imitating the 19th-Century style (i.e. won't this be fun and cute?) - it is actually a technique that combines with her use of footnotes, which flesh out a greater history of English magic, to create what I see as a great effect. It's one of those clever manipulations that hints at something sinister lurking beneath the writing. Reminds me a bit of Gormenghast or the atmosphere created in that serviceable film The Others. I also liken to Gene Wolfe's The Book of the New Sun, in that if you don't enjoy his writing style, you're probably not going to enjoy the books.

[ltbrown]

Damn you JP and your plush Christmas Cthulhu avatar! You made me snort my morning coffee all over my keyboard!!

[Teresa Edgerton]

I finally went out and bought the book. I'm only about a third of the way through, but enjoying it very much. Obviously, Clarke is not attempting to write a modern novel, and has chosen to imitate an earlier type of book and write in a 19th century style believing it the best possible way to tell this particular (and peculiar) story. So far, she's got me convinced. I have seen others attempt to pull off the same sort of thing, but never so successfully. At the same time, it's easy to see why many readers would NOT be engaged by it.

Particularly anyone who went into the book expecting something like Harry Potter: a story crowded with incident, with magic on every page, and characters drawn with broad strokes and even broader humor. On the contrary, the pace of "Jonathan Strange" is leisurely, the humor ironic, and though magic is often mentioned it is rarely actually seen (allowing it to retain much of its mystery).

But even though the setting is contemporary with Jane Austen, I'm not reminded of Austen so much as Dickens, Thackeray, and Thomas Love Peacock.

And I don't mind the footnotes at all, in fact rather enjoy them, though I can see how others might find them distracting.