Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell: April's Book Club Discussion

[kaneda]

I finished reading this a couple of days ago. My reaction to it is pretty much the same as when I finished reading A Prayer for Owen Meany - where the chapters which seemed pretty pointless makes sense and where everything does come together at the end.

Although I liked it (didn't love it), it has created this huge need to know more about uskglass - it would have been great if there had been more about his story in the book.

I am glad that I've read it though, but I'm more happier than now I can begin reading a diferent book

[Razorback]

I finally finished this one. I read mostly Sci-Fi, and this was very different from what I normally read. I only read it because it won a Hugo and I’m trying to read all of the Hugo and Nebula novel winners (12 to go). It’s blind luck that my reading coincided with the book club. Two things helped me through it. First, I mostly skimmed or skipped the footnotes. Second, I didn’t read it strait through. I always read one book at time until finished, then move on to the next. In this case, I stopped about every 250 pages and read another relatively short book before returning to Strange and Norrell. I probably would have given up about half way through if I hadn’t taken the breaks. I ended up somewhat enjoying the book, but I can’t say that I’m a big fan.

I definitely agree with the comment about the journey rather than the destination. I will reserve further comment until more people are farther along or finished.

[Lenny]

We're a week in to April already, quite a number have read it specially for the Bookclub, or have read it before, so I think we might as well stop holding back.

Soooo........ who wants to start?

[Teresa Edgerton]

I'm in the midst of a big project, which makes it a bad time for me to get too involved in any discussion. And with a book like this one ... I could get very involved indeed.

When I finish (I hope) in the next couple of days, I will undoubtedly have much to say.

[Culhwch]

Er... still on page one hundred, sadly. I just have no motivation to pick it up again, when there's things I actually want to read. I just have to grit my teeth and do it, I guess...

[Teresa Edgerton]

Courage, Culhwch. You've stopped at a point where it's fairly understandable that you're not motivated to keep on going. If the book has failed to exert it's peculiar charms over you by the time you've read about 300 pages, it probably never will -- but at page 100 the best is still ahead.

[Teresa Edgerton]

Sorry, duplicate post.

[ladyflorange]

i haven't managed to start it yet... its lying in the corner of my room and every time i go to pick it up i get scared :s

[Teresa Edgerton]

OK, since people are shy about getting the discussion going, I'll take a stab at it.

Obligatory disclaimer: This is the kind of book that nobody seems to be writing any more, the kind of book I wish more people were writing. So in that way I am obviously biased in favor. On the other hand, I would have been all the more critical if I felt she had tried to write a nineteenth-century type novel and blown it entirely. In fact, if it had been a botched attempt I am sure I would have hated the book.

But I think Susanna Clarke accomplished something extraordinary in JS&MN. Certainly in terms of catching the style and the flavor of the period -- I don't think I've ever seen anyone try to do this and succeed so spectacularly before. I also appreciate the complexity of the plot, the "history" of magic, the depth she put into some of her characters, and the way that she combined fantasy and real historical events. All in all, I loved this book. It was a leisurely read, and I tend to be the kind of reader who races right on through to see what happens next and how it all turns out -- and then if I love the book, go back and reread some of the best parts -- but with JS&MN I was happy to slow down and savor the experience.

I was very happy with the way she handled the magic. She told us quite a bit without telling too much. I always like the magic in a book to remain a little mysterious, so that it retains a certain numinous quality. Once you start explaining it in ordinary terms ... as far as I am concerned it becomes just that, ordinary, and this where so many fantasy novels lose me. But while she doesn't make that mistake, she does perform a precarious sort of balancing act by keeping the magic mysterious while making most of her practitioners of English Magic so very, very mundane -- one might almost say relentlessly mundane.

The book does have its flaws. Mr. Norrell is not a sympathetic character. Nor is he, in the way of most anti-heros, a swashbuckling rogue, a disillusioned hero, or a spectacularly creepy character. He has a great talent for magic, but he himself is a dry, petty little man -- small in every sense of the word. Thank goodness Jonathan Strange finally comes along. Strange is not the most sympathetic character ever written either (he can be particularly annoying in his attitude to Mrs. Strange), but the contrast with Norrell does put him in a favorable light (perhaps more so than he actually deserves), and at least he is much more interesting. But even though I didn't love these characters, I found them thoroughly believable. One reason (I think) why the movements of the plot are so often less than dramatic is because the characters insist on acting like real people would under the same conditions, rather than produce a lot of melodramatic flourishes to help the author spice up the story.

There are, however, several characters that I found much more interesting and likeable than Strange or Norrell -- and I think it would have been a better book if we had been allowed to see more of them: Childermass, Lady Pole, Arabella Strange, and Stephen Black. I'm of two minds about whether we should see more of the Thistle-haired Gentleman; I found him fascinating, but like the magic perhaps he would have lost some of his sinister glamour if he had played a larger role.

And now for a bit of a spoiler in the way of a question (highlight to read):
Am I the only one who thought Childermass was going to turn out to be the Raven King? Until very near the end, when we began to find out more about him, I was waiting for a big revelation -- which of course never came, as I was completely mistaken.

[Lenny]

That's a nice review.

I'll have to agree with you on your question. While I didn't think he'd turn out to be the Raven King, I was waiting for some more background information on him. I suppose that not having it in JS&MN gives Clarke the chance to give him a far bigger role, and write more about him, in her next book (which I do believe is in the process of being written), if it's about the same things and from the same time period, obviously.

[aarti]

Originally Posted by Teresa Edgerton

There are, however, several characters that I found much more interesting and likeable than Strange or Norrell -- and I think it would have been a better book if we had been allowed to see more of them: Childermass, Lady Pole, Arabella Strange, and Stephen Black. I'm of two minds about whether we should see more of the Thistle-haired Gentleman; I found him fascinating, but like the magic perhaps he would have lost some of his sinister glamour if he had played a larger role.

I agree with this- I would have LOVED to know more especially about Childermass, Arabella, and Stephen Black. I found Arabella to be such a delightful character, and I didn't think Strange deserved her, really ;-) It seemed like he ignored her through most of their marriage, then mourned her very deeply, and then when he found her again, he just sort of ditched her. I read the book about two years ago, I think, and so most of the details are fuzzy, at best, but she was one of those characters that sometimes glide through books that I sometimes think I could be good friends with, were she actually to exist.

[Teresa Edgerton]

I know more people than this have read the book. I wish some of you would join in the discussion.

Some of us have told why we love the book -- isn't it about time for those who really dislike it to jump in with both feet?

[Razorback]

Teresa, I think your review is spot on and well put. For me, however, the flaws are more significant. It was tough working through this much book without characters that were more likable, compelling or intriguing. I also thought there wasn’t enough oomph to the overall story or plot line. After wading through this tome, I ended up with a “so what” feeling. I would have liked the book a lot more if there were more spice to either the characters or the story, if not both. I agree that it’s an impressive work, but not one that I would recommend or return to for any reason. Of course, I’m not that much of a fantasy reader anyway.

As for your last question, I thought it might the Thistle-haired Gentleman.

[knivesout]

I read this book a year back, I think. I had the (still quite huge) trade paperback and used to carry it to work in a special bag so that I could lug it to lunch and back. In other words, I enjoyed it. Susanna Clarke may or may not have captured the flavour of Regency-era prose to perfection (personally I think she's done just enough to get the atmosphere without making the actual reading process a slog), she has captured the leisured, large and lavish feel of a novel of that era. The story unfolds at its own pace, and even dithers about a bit (I felt some of Strange's wanderings on the continent after losing Mrs Strange were a bit pointless), but does take you to several interesting places along the way. I think the characters are true to their era - the dry, humourless Norrell, the not especially interesting but, at least, less boring Strange and so on. The story itself, with it's intimations of a secret fairy-ridden history behind the scenes of Wellignton's battles is fantastic enough that the mundane characters help to ground the story somewhat. I also found the depiction of magic in the book satisfying - it is mysterious, but can be learned, but not without a price. I wonder if Clarke's theme of the rediscovery of magic and especialyl of practical magic anything to do with the rationalism of the age of reason and the indsutrial reason and is her own commentary or response to it, or if magic is just something interesting to write a story about. The footnotes are both a joy and a pain. I enjoyed many, but skipped others. Personally I think Clarke should impose a simple rule on herself, or her typographers - not to let a footnote run beyond the page it is appended to. It's been a while since I read the book, just thought I'd joy down a few general impressions.

[dsmith]

Sorry, but I have given up on finishing this book. I made it about halfway through, and just can't do any more.It's just not my type of book.