The phrase “English magic” is used many times in the novel, and it appears in this universe, other countries have no magicians. Napoleon’s efforts to find his own wizard meet with no success. All the pathways from this world into Faerie seem to begin in England. Yet fairies can go anywhere in the world, and an English magician can do magic in other countries, as Strange does in the Napoleonic Wars. Why is that?
Britain seemed to have a special relationship with Faerie and magic due to its history with the Raven King. France didn’t have that direct connection.
And besides, it shouldn’t seem all that odd that no other country could develop magicians when all of Britain could only produce two.
That’s another thing that was never adequately explained. England had plenty of magicians in the Middle Ages, and then, from then until the Regency period, the practice of magic was abandoned while academic study of it was kept very much alive. Why?
Is this book good?
If you like ______ you’ll like this book. <—Please fill in the blank.
Thanks,
-FrL-
Jane Austen and Neil Gaiman, but think that the one ought to be more like the other. It’s really good, but it has a “gimmick”, it’s written in the voice of a Regency novel/history, complete with footnotes. If you don’t like the novel’s voice, you won’t like the novel.
It seemed to me that magicians abandoned actual magic more or less simultaneously with magic abandoning the mundane world. Which is the cause and which the effect (if either) is left open to interpretation.
Or if you prefer, the departure of the Raven King slowly led to the death of magic.
It’s * extremely * good. Very well and stylishly written with a very, very dry humor. The only caveat is that it’s not a plot driven book. Every once in a while I did wonder where the narrative was going. As it turns out, all the plot threads come together in the end, but it’s more of a stylishly written pseudo-history.
If you liked Patrick O’Brian’s Aubrey and Maturin series, I think there’s a good chance you’d like Strange and Norrell.
Interesting. I love the the Aubrey/Maturin series, but couldn’t even make it half way through JS&MN. I’ve been meaning to give it a second try here soon.l
Fill in with:
Footnotes
Fictional Biographies
Regency literature
Magical realism
Books at all, really
(I loved that book. It was wonderful. Everyone should read it.)
So, comparable to Tim Powers or so?
Heh, that’s an interesting challenge.
I really, really liked the book, and to me it seemed very different to stuff I had read before. It is likely that in the future, it will be one of those books that other books are compared to, as in: “you will really like this - it’s like JS&MN”. 
Best I can do is “a cross between”, as was said by Menocchio above, something like Jane Austin and Gaiman.
I can understand why some others don’t like the book. You have to like the language and the tempo of the work - some can’t get into it. I loved it.
Finagle, I was about to compare it to the Aubrey/Maturin series as well.
capybara, Jonathan Strange didn’t remind me of Tim Powers much. I like both Powers and Clarke, but I much prefer Clarke.
Frylock, if you like Jane Austen/dry humor/historical fiction, you will probably like Jonathan Strange. It’s one of the best books I’ve read in years, but it’s not going to be everyone’s cup of tea.
The real answer is: because it was an English book, by an English author, for an English audience.
Sorry to be cynical, but there’s no deeper answer.
It’s not a quick read and it seems to take forever to get to places you know it’s heading for, but it is excellently written and brilliantly conceived. You have to approach it as a straight historical novel rather than looking for comparisons in fantasy.
If you like desperate, unending tedium you’ll like this book.
Sorry, I tried, I really did. I’ve heard nothing but great things about this book, one of my closest friends (who has tastes eerily similar to my own) raves about it, but I just could not get into it. Didn’t care about the characters, didn’t care about the plot, didn’t care about the setting. When it got to the point where I was only reading it to finish it, so I could start reading something else, I gave up. That was about two hundred pages in.
And just so you don’t think I’m a lightweight who can’t handle anything that isn’t paced and plotted like a Harry Potter novel, I will defend to the death Neal Stephenson’s Baroque Cycle as one of the greatest works of literature of the contemporary age. I can do slow, meandering, and over-written. I live for that shit, when it’s done well. Clarke simply couldn’t pull it off in Jonathan Norrell.
But you’re comparing it to a modern novel. Do you like any novels written before 1900?
I read the book largely due to the raves it was getting here in a Cafe Society thread not too long after the book first came out. I enjoyed it, but I could certainly see how some might think it’s brilliant while others couldn’t stand it.
I tend to agree with Exapno Mapcase. One minor speculative thought I have about this is that it is written in the style of a classical English history, and in such works England and the British empire are always shewn as the winners. Moreover, Britain was at the time the pre-eminent superpower
Not only is it a simply superb piece of writing, it’s also her first novel. I am awestruck by this fact.
Feel free to replace “Neal Stephenson” with “Herman Melville” in the above post.
I loved it. I can see why some would not. I disagree with your first and last sentences - it isn’t necessary to assume that the author is terrible because you couldn’t get into it, any more than it is necessary to assume that those who couldn’t get into it are lightweights.
I also loved Stephenson and Melville - again, both authours who some love and some cannot stand.
I loved the book, but don’t expect an adventure fantasy. It’s more like a novel of manners with magic thrown in. I’d call it a cross between a Jane Austin novel and a Tim Burton movie.
I loved it. Other authors I love include the aforementioned Stephenson, Austen, Gaiman, and, I think critical to my love of “JSandMN”, Trollope. The writing honestly reminded me more of Trollope than Austen with the ridiculous winding digressions and long explanations. Austen was crisp. Trollope was windy.
IIRC, although set during the Napoleonic wars, it purports to be written as a memoir several decades after. The narrator refers a few times to how things were in the past, when the story was occuring. That puts it closer in writing era to Dickens and Trollope than Austen, no matter how much Susanna Clarke loves Austen (we had a very short chat about Austen at a reading/signing I attended.)
OTOH, while I love Trollope, I can’t stand Dickens, so clearly mileage varies regardless of the period!
Ah, the Dude defence: “That’s just, like, your opinion, man.” Thank you, I’m aware that it is my opinion that the novel was dull. Likewise, I am aware that it is your opinion that the novel was interesting and entertaining. I, however, do not require that you temper your praise of the novel simply because I disagree with your conclusion. It would be nice if the same courtesy were extended in the opposite direction.