Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell and Piranesi

[Primula Baggins]

Spoilers don't bug me, yov—don't worry! I would have stayed out of this thread if they did.

[MaidenOfTheShieldarm]

Gee, Mossy, I didn't expect you to agree with my points so easily. I was expecting some fighting back!

I'm sorry. Let me try again.




There was OODLES of dramatic tension and strong characterization. The tensions between Fairy and England, Strange and Norrell, Stephen and Thistledown, Drawlight and everyone else. The fact that you didn't see it and couldn't appreciate Clarke's subtley ironic and cleverly constructed commentary on academia via Norrell's character clearly shows that you have no taste in anything at all.

[Primula Baggins]

Ooo.

Now tie his shoelaces together!

[MaidenOfTheShieldarm]

Shhh, don't tell! I was hoping he wouldn't notice.

[yovargas]

*sneaks in*



YOU'RE WRONG!!!


*runs away*



*trips*

[MaidenOfTheShieldarm]

Yeah, well, YOU'RE WRONGER!!!1!

[vison]

Well, I must admit I failed. I failed to even finish the book, never mind enjoy it.

This is, in and of itself, very surprising, since I rarely begin a book and then not read to the end. At one time, I would finish a book no matter what.

But it was a chore to read as far as I did read. Suddenly, last night, it dawned on me: this book is boring me to death! Why am I enduring this when "Bleak House" is sitting there, inviting me in to familiar and well-loved terrain? When "Orley Farm" is nestled cheek by jowl with "A Man of Property", and therein await Mrs. Mason of Groby Park and Soames Forsyte?

The thing is, and I daresay I am utterly wrong, this book strikes me as a kind of "Name of the Rose". "Name of the Rose" was an enormous hit. Sold millions. Everyone "loved" it. But ya know what? Of all the people I know that read it, I'm the only one who ACTUALLY read it. It was a fad, and the fad demanded that people buy it and put it on their table or nightstand. When it came right down to reading it? Hah.

Certainly some here have read "Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell" and I am glad, glad, glad for them that they liked it.

I did not. I found it over-written, tedious, boring, artsy-fartsy, and without one character I could love or hate. I began it with such great hopes! But it palled, man, did it pall.

OK. Just thought I'd drop in and rain on your parade.

[yovargas]

*dances in the rain with vison*

and without one character I could love or hate.

Without any characters to care about and a lack of a driving plot, I am really surprised that so many would be compelled to keep going for the full 800. This thread is the only reason I got through.

I saw the conflict (and thus the dramatic question) to be about the kidnappings/conflict between Faerie and England -- what would happen to Lady Pole and Stephen? Was the Gentleman going to be defeated or foiled, and who? And who the heck is the Raven King? That's what drove the book for me.

But all of that was soooo far in the background for the vast majority of the book! I kept wishing and wishing that the Gentleman storyline woul become more of a focus and thank goodness it finally does but it took sooooo long to get there!

[MaidenOfTheShieldarm]

The thing is, and I daresay I am utterly wrong, this book strikes me as a kind of "Name of the Rose". "Name of the Rose" was an enormous hit. Sold millions. Everyone "loved" it. But ya know what? Of all the people I know that read it, I'm the only one who ACTUALLY read it. It was a fad, and the fad demanded that people buy it and put it on their table or nightstand. When it came right down to reading it? Hah.

Unfortunately, I think you're right for the most part. It is immensely popular, but how many people bought it to read and how many bought it because it looked nice on their shelves. It's just so unweildy, both in physical size and in the language used -- very un-pop culture.

All kidding aside, yov, I didn't argue with you because your points are very valid. I honestly have no idea why I loved it so much, because there really isn't a driving plot and the only characters that I was really invested in were Stephen and Childermass (who I really do love). Those things generally really bother me. I started a reply to your question about Lascelles, but I'd like to reread the passage first -- I don't remember it that wlel.

The author digresses just because the digression might be interesting

You make an interesting point, Prim, about the style of writing. It's not something that had occurred to me, and normally that leisurely style woudl drive me a bit batty, but here it didn't.

I think (and I could be wrong) that the thing that drew me in was how natural the book felt. It wasn't a "look, we have wizards and fairies and magic!", just "Yeah, there are wizards . What's your point?" and so the plot wasn't as important, because the world she created was so real and appealing to me.

More later. Dinner's ready. [/quote]

[vison]

I truly thought I'd enjoy it since I am fascinated by the era. I read, and re-read not only Jane Austen, but several other authors who actually lived and wrote then, some very obscure and unknown in our time. (I have also enjoyed later authors writing about it, for instance Thackeray's divine chapters on the Battle of Waterloo.) I immerse myself in Trollope for months on end, ditto Dickens (although to a lesser degree). The language and story-telling conventions of the 19th century are precious to me.

I think that is Part of the Problem. The book nearly succeeds in convincing me of its "period" authenticity . . . . but does not. It is, in my view, simply too contrived.

Added to that the other failings I see in it, small wonder that it left me unmoved.

I wonder if there is any hope of a Trollope thread? I know Prim has read at least some Trollope.

[yovargas]

It is, in my view, simply too contrived.

Can you elaborate on this a bit?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

All kidding aside, yov, I didn't argue with you because your points are very valid. I honestly have no idea why I loved it so much, because there really isn't a driving plot and the only characters that I was really invested in were Stephen and Childermass (who I really do love). Those things generally really bother me.

The same goes for me. This is just the type of book that it doesn't seem like I would like. I rarely do like the books that are "all the rage". If asked why I liked it so much, I would be hard pressed to find an answer.

The author digresses just because the digression might be interesting

You make an interesting point, Prim, about the style of writing. It's not something that had occurred to me, and normally that leisurely style woudl drive me a bit batty, but here it didn't.

I think (and I could be wrong) that the thing that drew me in was how natural the book felt. It wasn't a "look, we have wizards and fairies and magic!", just "Yeah, there are wizards . What's your point?" and so the plot wasn't as important, because the world she created was so real and appealing to me.

Yes, I think the same would go for me. Though that is interesting because it so strongly contradicts vison's opinion that it seemed "contrived". I did not find that to be the case at all. Just the opposite.

[vison]

It is, in my view, simply too contrived.

Can you elaborate on this a bit?

Well, part of the problem is, it is an era I know quite a bit about. That's the first thing.

The second is, I could never willingly suspend my disbelief. It just wouldn't happen.

The elaborate attempts to create this "reality" failed for me. The footnotes were annoying. The characters were not "naturalistic" in my opinion, and therefore acted unlike real people.

I thought it was too elaborate. Too many balls in the air.

Parts of it were excellent, as the Iron Duke is famously said to have remarked about a rotten egg.

See? I don't see Wellington in there at all. He'd snort and laugh and ignore it all.

[MaidenOfTheShieldarm]

Will respond later, but for now . . .

Susanna Clarke's new book, The Ladies of Grace Adieu, is now on preorder and it is awfully pretty.

Curse the exchange rate and my lack of funds!

[TheTennisBallKid]

Susanna Clarke's new book, The Ladies of Grace Adieu, is now on preorder and it is awfully pretty.

Curse the exchange rate and my lack of funds!

Also, at Amazon, comparatively cheaply! (though, according to my way of thinking, I should buy JS&N before getting this... )

I like the cover.

Is this the rumoured(?) sequel, or...?


ttbk

[MaidenOfTheShieldarm]

I like the cover.

Me, too.

Is this the rumoured(?) sequel, or...?

It's ... -- a book of short stories set in the same world as JS&MN (which you still owe me a post about ).

There are more examples of the ever so pretty illustrations here.

[Frelga]

I finally got to it. Borrowed Strange and Norrel from the library Friday, finished it today, regret it already. It's a rare thing this day - a book meant to be enjoyed at leisure, in fact written on a ridiculous assumption that readers have leisure and are willing to waste it on books.

I enjoyed it. I liked the stately pace, the meticulous details, the premise, the clever style. The plot was slow, but I didn't mind that. Moder plotting tends to be like a stripped down racecar - fast and barebones. This book is like Harry Potter in that it is not afraid to spend some time on pure embelishment. A bigger failing is the lack of compelling characters. Jonathan Strange is a mere sketch until the last quarter, Norrell is just too annoying. Stephen Black and Childermass are interesting, but they rarely take center stage. IOW, there is nobody to root for, and the conflict doesn't really take shape for the longest time.

Or, basically, what everyone else said.

[Inanna]

I just finished the book, and now have a post on it up on my blog (hint!!)!
I loved the book, and contrary to what people have said, I loved the characters. I think I loved Susanna Clarke's insights into human character.... didn't you adore Lord Wellington, and Lord Liverpool Even these "side" characters were so real!!!

[truehobbit]

I must say that I'm not getting on with this book. Initially, I loved the slow pace, it read a bit like a 19th century novel, not afraid of convoluted sentences that created a dry humour.
However, it proved to be too slow for me. Especially the many mock-footnotes threw me. This was funny at first, but soon became very tedious. I was contemplating just skipping them - did anyone do that?
I normally don't skip anything in books (yes, I read all the poems in LOTR carefully! ), and I also wonder if there isn't stuff that's necessary for the plot in all that miniature text. I still want to know what happens next, as I thought this was a very curious and unusual story, but there are always so many other things to read to catch my interest, so I abandoned this for the time being (at around page 80).

[Inanna]

80! pffftttttttt....

you should do what I do - read at a breathtaking pace first, and then read everything slowly in the second read.

I loved the footnotes.. so didn't skip them - but you can if you just want to follow the story.