Finished this last night, and wanted to bump the thread, because I know I’m not the only one who’s been reading it.
I don’t think the characters were necessarily particularly stupid – though Norrell’s “half and half” mistake was particularly boneheaded – since that was damn close to the first magic he’d done, I didn’t find it hard to believe that he’d miss the obvious loophole.
I loved that the man with the thistledown hair was never named – I spent a while thinking he might be John Uskglass, then realized that didn’t work. I loved the relationship between him and Henry Black, and I looooooooooooooved the fact that Henry Black did become a king in the end..
I loved the final scene between Arabella and Jonathan. I loved the way the relationship between Strange and Norrell was resolved.
I loved the way the author (and characters) talked about English magic as though it were a tangible thing, not an intangible concept.
The footnotes were great, and I loved the way Clarke kept the tone totally 19th-century – except for these tiny glimpses of a more modern humor in the occasional turn of a phrase.
Well, I remember thanking Charles Dickens for * ending * Bleak House. What’s-her-name was the most unbearably syrupy-sweet Pollyanna I’ve ever encountered in literature. But aside from that, the book was fine.
Not done with Strange and Norrell yet, so I’ll have to come back to this thread later.
I went back to it and finished, after reading a review that helped me change my expectations about the book. The ending was astonishing, and now I’m looking forward to what comes next.
Wow, you’ve definitely piqued my curiosity – what were your expectations before reading the review, whose review was it, and what were your expectations after?
What convinced me from the review was that Sawyer had some of the same problems I did – expecially the “indistinctness” – at times it was like reading through a curtain, there was too much distance, and I didn’t engage with any of the characters.
Despite that indistinctness, or maybe even because of it, Sawyer found a lot to like.
I think I expected more fantasy, more magic, less drawing room banality. The characters said everything they were thinking. There was nothing to question. Everyone’s plans and motives were out there. (Except for the Thistledown Hair guy, of course.)
I just finished listened to an audiobook version of this book, and I had to run back here and find this thread and comment.
WOW! What a fabulous book! Yes, it’s a little slow to get started. But the ending – what a marvelous and satisfying ending.
I thought there was plenty of magic in the book – the kind of magic that pervades everything. Magic was happening everywhere, not just being performed by Strange and Norrell. And Stephen (not Henry, twickster) Black’s fate – perfect. Absolutely. Perfect.
I was a little skeptical whether audiobook narration could handle the footnotes, but I didn’t find them intrusive at all. But why in the world the narrator thought it was proper to pronounce “Sidhe” as sid-hee and not shee, I’ll never know.
Susanna Clarke says that her next book will likely be set in the same world as JS&MN (see here. W00t!!! I can’t wait!
I’m glad you said this, because I am struggling with it. Based on so many positive observations here, I am trying it, but am finding it ponderous. Hopefully it gets better, as you say. One of the things that is making me nuts is all the footnotes, some of them longer than the real text on the page. It is just a distraction. Oh well, I’ll keep plugging away.
Khadaji, if you have a chance to get the audiobook (maybe from the library?) that might be easier for you. I started out with a print copy and bogged down a bit. The footnotes actually seemed less intrusive in the audiobook than they did in the print copy.
Absolutely and totally satisfying. The whole end of his story arc really worked for me.
Yes. When the narrator comes to the first footnote, he says “Footnote 1.” He’s read the footnote, and then just continue with the rest of the story. The footnote count started over each chapter, so at the end you didn’t have “Footnote 473” or whatever.
No, seriously. Don’t think of them as distractions, or digressions from the story. If you notice, they’re very often placed at breaks between scenes or chapters–I don’t recall many at all that were smack in the middle of a scene, where you had to read five hundred words of footnote and then come back in the middle of a conversation you’d forgotten. And even so, they’re not extraneous. Once you decide they’re part of the story, they’re no longer a distraction.
But then, I adored the footnotes. I’d see that little superscript number and think, “ooh, a footnote!” Because they were just lovely. I’m going to have to read that book again.
Bumping because I finished this book last night and it was frickin’ sweet. One question I had, though:
Why was the gentlemen with the thistle down hair taken to Vinculus at the end? I thought Vinculus would become the resurrected body of Uskglass and then whup all over him, but that didn’t happen. As far as I can tell, Vinculus had nothing to do with tGwtTDH’s fate at all. Also, did anyone else feel sort of sorry for the guy being killed by Steven Black? I mean of all the people who had reason to hate him, he gets bumped off by the one guy he’s actually trying to help, albeit in a very unfortunate way.
What a great book. I can’t wait for her next one. I did notice, though, that she started this book in 92 or 93, so hopefully she’ll be a little bit faster on the next one.
I’m bumping this thread 'cos I’ve just finished this book, after a marathon reading session: you can’t read “just one more chapter” in this book; you have to keep going until you just can’t keep your eyes open. This was the first book I’ve read since His Dark Materials that I devoured in about three sittings - pure reading bliss.
A few observations: I thought the writing style was closer to Thackeray than Dickens myself, though with less authorial omniscience, with its dry archness: definitely a touch of Jane Austen, too. Susanna Clarke absolutely pulled off a mid-19th century “voice”, though.
Loved the characterisation: nobody was two-dimensional, and almost everyone had a sympathetic streak, even Mr Norrell. Great development, too, as all the characters grew more rounded throughout the novel: even the bad guys, Lascelles and Drawlight, matured - Lascelles in particular convincingly grew from an idle, self-interested fop to a ruthless bastard who’d do anything to protect his stake in Mr Norrell. Great comeuppances for the pair of them, too: Lascelles’ fate was chilling.
The women characters were great, and made the romances of Jonathan/Arabella and Jonathan/Flora romances, completely believable: convincing relationships between men and women is almost always a weak point in fantasy, but Clarke nailed them dead on.
Ditto the race angle: Stephen Black was convincing as an outwardly accomplished but inwardly bitter and insecure black man in Regency England, and I liked the way The Man With The Thistledown Hair didn’t exactly manipulate him, but encouraged him in his hostility with his sympathy and support. I thought I had Stephen pegged as John Uskglass, too.
Now I have to go back and read it again, to savour it more slowly.
Neil Gaiman says that “from beginning to end, [Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell is] a perfect pleasure.” No argument here.
audiobottle, I gathered that
the gentleman with the thistle-down hair wanted to make Stephen King of England–while retaining power for himself, to rule over Faerie. Vinculus was the instrument of John Uskglass (or the powers that be) to restore Stephen to his true place, as the King of Faerie, according to the prophecy.
