Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell
Jan. 19th, 2005 10:20 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
likethebeerI finished. I wasn't expecting to last night, but it was one of those times where I had about 100 pages left, and it was only 9 pm, so... mda did have to do the dishes, but he didn't complain.
The book has been described as "Jane Austin meets Harry Potter," and that's a pretty good description of it. If you don't like either, or if you're not interested in subplots and reading footnotes, you probably won't like this book. It's rather long, too. Close to 800 pages. Additionally, it's at points darker and lusher than Harry Potter. Although, in a way, it is never as scary as HP.
It begins in 1806, which is also around the time period that Austin was writing, and it does have to do w/English magic [Although these are magicians, not witches. The distinction is never made, in fact I don't think witches are ever mentioned].
The first thing I appreciated about it was the voice. It's v. "early 19th Century". In fact, in the beginning, she had Jane Austin's voice so down that I was amazed. And I certainly appreciate the fact that the author, Susanna Clarke, really put the effort into it. It has at points a dry British humor. It does begin to change, slowly, as the story becomes more complicated, with moral questions.
Gilbert Norrell is a man who has studied the practice of magic his entire life. Most English school kids learn the history of magic in their country, but it has become a dry, rote, exercise. There were societies of "magicians" who really just studied the history of magic. Mr Norrell proposes to bring magic back, and in glorious form. Eventually, he accepts Jonathan Strange as his apprentice.
Norrell is socially inept and miserly in his knowledge, and especially of his books. He has probably the largest library of books on magic in England. He means well, but he's terribly nervous. Jonathan Strange starts as a langurous, well paid English gent, who ends up being more inventive w/his magic--more intuitive. Changing spells hundreds of years old to create the desired effect.
And then there are faeries, and faery worlds.
I don't know if I'm up for picking up this book again and reading it right away. Firstly, I got it from the library and it's due back on Friday. And it is close to 800 pages. But I can't really find anything at fault with it and I would like to have a copy for myself. I kept describing some of the scenes to mda. There's a scene when Strange gets involved at Waterloo. He makes mud to shape iself into the form of human hands that reach up from the ground and drag down enemy soldiers. There are soldiers that he calls from the dead to ask questions. Only problem is, he knows how to raise them from the dead, but he doesn't know how to send them back. Eventually, they have to be stuck in a wagon to follow along with the army. They try putting them in shackles but because they're dead, they feel no pain in ripping their bodies out of the manacles, leaving part of themselves behind. There are faery roads that open up, and faery castles. One of which is filled outside with skeletons and rotting armor. There are the "King's roads"--paths between all the mirrors of the world. There are enchanted people who are forced every night to go to faery balls. There is a character who just seems more susceptible to magic, and when he approaches a magical place, he sees these vivid, fever-like visions, and surrealistic dreams. And these things are "shown" not "told." But not told in a frenetic way. Things just start happening, and it takes a while for the reader to realize that this character just has a trait like this.
And I'm not even talking about the footnotes. Pages and pages (in total, that is) are taken up with footnotes describing this fictional history. There are fictional books, fictional stories, and fictional, historical debates about the fictional books and fictional stories.
And then there's just the early 19th Century British society that Clarke seems to portray so well. When Mr Norrell goes to London, he becomes part of the social scene. Anyone who's read Jane Austin will totally recognize it. And yet Clarke doesn't parody it. She doesn't use it as a device. Like I said, she just seems to have to voice down pat. [btw: one of my "reading projects" that I engaged in on one of my periods of being seasonally laid off from work was to read all of Jane Austin's work. So I have a prejudice, certainly.]
Really. I think Clarke did something really great here.
Next, I'm on to Ibid: A Life. A lot smaller.
The book has been described as "Jane Austin meets Harry Potter," and that's a pretty good description of it. If you don't like either, or if you're not interested in subplots and reading footnotes, you probably won't like this book. It's rather long, too. Close to 800 pages. Additionally, it's at points darker and lusher than Harry Potter. Although, in a way, it is never as scary as HP.
It begins in 1806, which is also around the time period that Austin was writing, and it does have to do w/English magic [Although these are magicians, not witches. The distinction is never made, in fact I don't think witches are ever mentioned].
The first thing I appreciated about it was the voice. It's v. "early 19th Century". In fact, in the beginning, she had Jane Austin's voice so down that I was amazed. And I certainly appreciate the fact that the author, Susanna Clarke, really put the effort into it. It has at points a dry British humor. It does begin to change, slowly, as the story becomes more complicated, with moral questions.
Gilbert Norrell is a man who has studied the practice of magic his entire life. Most English school kids learn the history of magic in their country, but it has become a dry, rote, exercise. There were societies of "magicians" who really just studied the history of magic. Mr Norrell proposes to bring magic back, and in glorious form. Eventually, he accepts Jonathan Strange as his apprentice.
Norrell is socially inept and miserly in his knowledge, and especially of his books. He has probably the largest library of books on magic in England. He means well, but he's terribly nervous. Jonathan Strange starts as a langurous, well paid English gent, who ends up being more inventive w/his magic--more intuitive. Changing spells hundreds of years old to create the desired effect.
And then there are faeries, and faery worlds.
I don't know if I'm up for picking up this book again and reading it right away. Firstly, I got it from the library and it's due back on Friday. And it is close to 800 pages. But I can't really find anything at fault with it and I would like to have a copy for myself. I kept describing some of the scenes to mda. There's a scene when Strange gets involved at Waterloo. He makes mud to shape iself into the form of human hands that reach up from the ground and drag down enemy soldiers. There are soldiers that he calls from the dead to ask questions. Only problem is, he knows how to raise them from the dead, but he doesn't know how to send them back. Eventually, they have to be stuck in a wagon to follow along with the army. They try putting them in shackles but because they're dead, they feel no pain in ripping their bodies out of the manacles, leaving part of themselves behind. There are faery roads that open up, and faery castles. One of which is filled outside with skeletons and rotting armor. There are the "King's roads"--paths between all the mirrors of the world. There are enchanted people who are forced every night to go to faery balls. There is a character who just seems more susceptible to magic, and when he approaches a magical place, he sees these vivid, fever-like visions, and surrealistic dreams. And these things are "shown" not "told." But not told in a frenetic way. Things just start happening, and it takes a while for the reader to realize that this character just has a trait like this.
And I'm not even talking about the footnotes. Pages and pages (in total, that is) are taken up with footnotes describing this fictional history. There are fictional books, fictional stories, and fictional, historical debates about the fictional books and fictional stories.
And then there's just the early 19th Century British society that Clarke seems to portray so well. When Mr Norrell goes to London, he becomes part of the social scene. Anyone who's read Jane Austin will totally recognize it. And yet Clarke doesn't parody it. She doesn't use it as a device. Like I said, she just seems to have to voice down pat. [btw: one of my "reading projects" that I engaged in on one of my periods of being seasonally laid off from work was to read all of Jane Austin's work. So I have a prejudice, certainly.]
Really. I think Clarke did something really great here.
Next, I'm on to Ibid: A Life. A lot smaller.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-01-19 09:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-20 06:17 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-20 01:53 pm (UTC)I'm a bit more curious now. maybe I'll give it a go.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-20 02:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-20 02:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-20 02:50 pm (UTC)(Of course, the person that said that was probably never in an actual knife-fight.)
no subject
Date: 2005-01-20 02:00 pm (UTC)Personally, I just filter each recommendation by the source it comes from. Someone who likes nothing but Hollywood 'chick flicks' will be less likely to influence me to watch, well, anything really.
I have been very reluctant to read the Harry Potter books, based on the above, err, filtration system, but now many people whose literary tastes I respect are strongly recommending the books. Also, I'm trying to read all of the Hugo winners, and the 3rd or 4th book did win one. What to do? Guess I will have to cave in...
no subject
Date: 2005-01-20 02:40 pm (UTC)Also, trailers are a pretty good indicator for me about a movie. I've yet to see one that makes me want to see something. Most give me a good idea what to steer clear of.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-20 04:19 pm (UTC)Regarding: Harry Potter
Date: 2005-01-20 04:21 pm (UTC)Re: Regarding: Harry Potter
Date: 2005-01-20 04:55 pm (UTC)Re: Regarding: Harry Potter
Date: 2005-01-20 05:05 pm (UTC)Neil Gaiman, huh? He keeps popping up in my life.
Re: Regarding: Harry Potter
Date: 2005-01-20 05:46 pm (UTC)Re: Regarding: Harry Potter
Date: 2005-01-20 07:19 pm (UTC)Re: Regarding: Harry Potter
Date: 2005-01-21 09:06 pm (UTC)That Tim Hunter/Harry Potter link is pretty strong.