Sci-fi and Heroic Fantasy discussion

This is our contemporary fantasy novel discussion of...


Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell by Susanna Clarke

Winner of the 2005 Hugo Award, Nebula Award nominee, & Locus award winner for Best First Novel. And currently a BBC TV series.

I just started reading it. What a doorstopper :)
I can only hope to make it this time, as lots of work hinder my reading progress, and Gene Wolfe's stories are waiting as well.

I started reading when I started watching the BBC series. Not very far in the book so far. Loving the series.

It's been a couple of years since I read this, though I didn't read it when it was first published. I mean, it was nominated for the Man Booker prize, like a bright neon orange sign slapped across the cover screaming, "LitCrap!". Still, I was modestly surprised to discover I enjoyed it in a fashion (though no doubt I missed all the subtle Jane Austenisms.)

A pair of British gentry, both owing their wealth and status to inheritance, find themselves England's two magicians. Norrell is introverted, bookish, socially awkward, and secretive, but long dedicated to studying magic. Strange is an extroverted slacker who simply chances into magic. The two start as master and apprentice and eventually evolve into rivals.

An interesting supporting cast includes Segundis, who earnestly wishes he could work magic but has no talent for it. Also brings in a bunch of historical characters from the Napoleonic Wars, including Wellington & George III.

The writing style is somewhat imitative of the period, such as Austen's. I think the charm of that wore off for me after 100 pages or so.

I never heard of it before the BBC series currently being aired. I did a little web wandering with the title and discovered it to be a book! I skimmed a bit of the synopsis on a site, just to see if it were worth watching. Eeuww...I nearly crossed it off the list. However, my wife had a curiosity to see where it went, so we continued to watch. Well, in this case, I think the video adaptation has exceeded the source book. A lot of the tiresome tangles described in that synopsis have apparently been pruned away with a machete. I can't claim to be a big fan, but it is an enjoyable hour's diversion a week.

Be forewarned that the plot is slow to start.

I loved it because of the intricacy of the world even before then, but not everyone can take it.

I'm not very far in it - not even 100 pages. I like the style and even the slowliness. I just love the grumpy characters, their manierisms. And yes, it is slooooow, it isn't a page turner; but worthwhile.

It will pick up. The climax of it hits like a locomotive going full steam.

I tried this one awhile back and never finished. I love intricate world building, but I like it best when it's partnered with a compelling character or two. (Or at least one that I find compelling, I know that's completely open to personal opinion.) I never connected with either magician, or anyone else for that matter. Beautiful writing, though. I probably made it to the 100 page mark, give or take.

Aleah wrote: "I like it best when it's partnered with a compelling character or two. (Or at least one that I find compelling, I know that's completely open to personal opinion.) I never connected with either magician, or anyone else for that matter...."

It's hard to know what makes a character compelling.

I'd say Norrell certainly isn't very sympathetic. His secretive and guards the hard-won books and knowledge he's accumulated through years of study, and is jealous of the upstart who seems to be a natural talent. He also isn't very forthright about his errors. He's also surrounded himself by even less sympathetic characters, sycophants and social climbers eager to ride his coattails and willing to do whatever it takes to promote their benefactor.

Norrell's motives also aren't all that clear to me. Does he wish to restore "respectable" magic to England? (If so, why does he seem jealous of Strange?) Or does he simply wish to be recognized as the respectable magician (in which case, why did he have to be pressed to move to London?)

Strange is only slightly better. He has a ingenuous enthusiasm for magic, though he's also a slacker content to live off his inheritance. He becomes more sympathetic later in the story, when he has something to work towards.

I read this several years back. It took a while to get into it, then once it got going I enjoyed it, then after I finished it I was going, "Wait, what was that all about?" It didn't really stick with me. The ending is kind of wide open and I would have liked to read a sequel following the further adventures of Strange and Norrell in the situation they're in, but my understanding is that the follow-up book was supposed to take on a completely different set of characters. So that's too bad.

On the whole, the book struck me more as the work of a literary writer moonlighting in fantasy without maybe completely understanding the genre instead of a seasoned and informed fantasy author.

I do like how it gives new meaning to the phrase "crazy cat lady". :-D

Kyra wrote: "without maybe completely understanding the genre instead of a seasoned and informed fantasy author."

It is true that this is Clarke's first and only novel. But it is not her first work in the phantastic genre - she's published a couple of shorter works in the end of 90s, some of them went into Year's best anthologies. One novella - "Mr Simonelli, or the Fairy Widower" - was shortlisted for the World Fantasy Award 2001. I can't say anything about the quality The Ladies of Grace Adieu and Other Stories (I haven't read them) but their setting seems to be similar to our novel - "fairy-crossed world of 19th-century England".
We can fairly assume that she understands her own world, her subgenre - which is magical realism for me; others termed it as alternate history (which doesn't fit for me because of the magic elements), or a gothic tale.
I understand where your "literary writer" comes from: The author herself described the novel as a pastiche of Charles Dickens and Jane Austen.

Concerning her understanding of the genre, I can't say much. I think you're on the right track, as the author says in an interview of 2004 "I am not well read in contemporary science fiction and fantasy, but then the truth is I'm not very well read in anything." I've understood, that she read The Lord of the Rings several times, comic adaptions of Moorcock, and Neil Gaiman. Additionally, she attended a five-day fantasy and science-fiction writing workshop in the 90s. She "wanted it [the magic system] to seem as real as the magic in Ursula K. Le Guin's Earthsea trilogy". But she doesn't refrain from the genre like Atwood does.

As to "instead of a seasoned and informed fantasy author":
I think that the novel fits to other works, likeJohn Crowley's Little, Big, Erin Morgenstern's The Night Circus (which was a group discussion some 1.5 years ago), or some works of Neil Gaiman (who included her in one of his anthologies).
So, yes, a different author might have written the work differently. After all, it might be only a matter of taste - did you read (and if so, what did you think of) Little, Big or similar works?

Andreas wrote: "It is true that this is Clarke's first and only novel. But it is not her first wor..."

It must be a matter of taste. Those sorts of more "literary" fantasy books really aren't to my liking; neither are fairies and fantasy set in our world. I'm much more a reader of Steven Erikson, Carol Berg, Brandon Sanderson, things like that.

I just started and am only about 100 pages in right now. I like the dry humor, and I'm betting the story will pick up soon as I'm ready for more dialogue (show, don't tell). Not to solicit any spoilers, please, but I'm already wondering if Childermass is more than he appears. For someone who does magic, I see surprisingly little of it from Norrell, and after all, it was Childermass who was on the scene of the first bit of magic at the cathedral. Just sayin......

Not feeling particularly motivated to do much else during a few stormy afternoons, I finally finished the novel.

Presenting the story as chronicling events in the alliterative history, worked for me. Although, the style does put some distance between the reader and the characters. Sometimes the footnotes seemed a bit excessive.

A good story. Four stars.

April wrote: "For someone who does magic, I see surprisingly little of it from Norrell"

True. Only two visible acts of magic in the first 200 pages - the second one not even by himself but by a magic helper.

Sarah wrote: "Sometimes the footnotes seemed a bit excessive. "

And some are even stranger: Adding the end of a story, for example.

So i was telling a friend about the book and he wondered if it was like Harry Potter. I explained that it was a very different sort. But I do not not doubt that the popularity of Harry Potter helped the author find a publisher.

In the novel Segundus wants to start a school of magic, and I think he would have fit in at Hogwarts. I don't see him teaching defense against the dark arts, but maybe theory of magic.

Sarah wrote: "In the novel Segundus wants to start a school of magic, and I think he would have fit in at Hogwarts. ..."

I had almost the same reaction. I thought, "you could name it Hogwarts!" :)

Sarah wrote: "wants to start a school of magic"

I'm at 20% (goodness, what a slow read :) ), and the question of magic school pops up for the first time. I found it very funny how Mr Norrell absolutely doesn't want it but can't officially work against it, as ministers and even the King support it. I'm not through this episode (Clarke meanders through other topics) but I'm glad to hear that this hot potato is passed on.

I read this year's ago when it came out, loved the pacing, loved the depth, the contrapuntal roles, the whole Victorian vibe! Afterwards, I read the Ladies of Adieu as well, and just wished SO that she wasn't done writing yet.
But it seems she is, sadly.
It's an under appreciated book - no car chases, no gun fights, everything is honor-bound, and the fae isn't to many people's liking.

I almost feel this book was written for me ;)

The ending really had a lot of us believing in a sequel. Who knows? After all, To Kill A Mockingbird has a companion book, after all these years. Miracles apparently DO happen!

Is anyone enjoying the show? I'd hate to be reading along with it; you know there'll be discrepancies. Even so, I think the show has captured the "taste" of the books.

Look on the bright side: a lot of authors are one-hit wonders. what if all her later work was inferior?

Mary wrote: "Look on the bright side: a lot of authors are one-hit wonders. what if all her later work was inferior?"
True enough but its still a pity. I would loved to read more about this world.

April wrote: "For someone who does magic, I see surprisingly little of it from Norrell..."

Andreas wrote: "Only two visible acts of magic in the first 200 pages - the second one not even by himself but by a magic helper. ..."

I don't recall Gandalf casting a lot of spells, either. Mostly it's pipe-puffing and sounding wise. :)

At one point Norrell will travel around the coast, casting spells to protect/warn against invasion. It's the same spell, over and over, but I seem to recall it was a lengthy trip that he was quite put out over.

Which really illustrates the contradiction of Norrell: He wants to make British magic "respectable", but he wishes to do so from the comfort of his country estate (and isn't really happy at having to come to London, much less actually travel about the country.) And while willing to provide a few illusionary fleets for the war effort, you can't even imagine going to Portugal.

In one of my favorite passages, we learn that Norrell conjures bad dreams for the enemy. Nobody believes they are effective. They consider bringing in authors like Ann Radcliffe to invent something more frightening.

Meran wrote: "
Is anyone enjoying the show? I'd hate to be reading along with it; you know there'll be discrepancies. Even so, I think the show has captured the "taste" of the books. "

Of course they must condense some things, but I think they are doing a good job of maintaining the spirit of the novel.

I'm a little past the halfway mark. I like the old style of writing, also, there's nothing laugh-out-loud funny but I find myself chuckling a lot.


Meran wrote: "Is anyone enjoying the show? I'd hate to be reading along with it; you know there'll be discrepancies. Even so, I think the show has captured the "taste" of the books. "

I plan to start watching the show after I've finished the book so I don't mix them up. So far I've heard a lot of good about it.

Hi people. I have only just joined this group, and just happen to be reading Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell. Currently I am 85 percent through the book and am thinking five stars. Without a doubt this book is one of the best I have read so far this year.

I have been trying for days to read this book. I see the potential, I really do, but it is soooooo slow to start out with and rather miserable. I am shelving it - perhaps I may come back later - and moving onto something that gives more immediate satisfaction.

Anne Marie wrote: "I have been trying for days to read this book. I see the potential, I really do, but it is soooooo slow to start out with and rather miserable. I am shelving it - perhaps I may come back later - an..."

I tried it a few years ago in both print & audio. Never could get into it. I found some of the footnotes more interesting than the story. Some were long enough to make good short stories, though.

I enjoyed the footnotes for the most part. My issue was with a few near the end of the novel that seemed to disrupt the action. Seemed to me they could have been placed differently with just a mention of a name or whatever. Once we're into the action, I say don't get sidetracked.

G33z3r wrote: "Sarah wrote: "In the novel Segundus wants to start a school of magic, and I think he would have fit in at Hogwarts. ..."
I had almost the same reaction. I thought, "you could name it Hogwarts!" :)"

Or Groosham Grange.

So I finished it, and really loved it. I enjoyed the footnotes as well, like the one where the narrator says "well this story is worth being told so here it is..." and finishes a story that characters mentioned. That's bold.
I guess the criticism that there are no completely good or compelling character is warranted. I didn't mind that so much, but have to admit that when I watched the show I was much more moved by (view spoiler)[Arabella's apparent death (hide spoiler)] because the character was more fleshed out and I felt her relationship with Strange was more "real" or stronger.

I guess I could have given it 5 stars depending on my mood at the time, for a first (and as of now only) novel it's very impressive. I understand the author is working on a sequel, and I'll definitely read it although I don't mind the open ending as it is.

Sarah wrote: "Meran wrote: "
Is anyone enjoying the show? I'd hate to be reading along with it; you know there'll be discrepancies. Even so, I think the show has captured the "taste" of the books. "

Of course they must condense some things, but I think they are doing a good job of maintaining the spirit of the novel. "

I watched the show after reading the book and loved it. The adaptation is very faithful and I can get behind most of the changes due to budget or screentime constraints. For me the only thing that's really a shame is not having (view spoiler)[Lascelles become the Champion (hide spoiler)]; I know it would have taken more money and a few more minutes' screentime but that's something that struck me in the book.
The actors are all very good; at first I wished they's have cast an older man (or made the actor look older) as Norrell, but the actor was excellent.

I was sad to learn that apparently the UK ratings were very bad; I hope it doesn't prevent the BBC to make other quality, probably expensive, shows like this.

Bryan wrote: "I guess the criticism that there are no completely good or compelling character is warranted. ..."

I dunno, I thought the novel clearly made Jonathan Strange the compelling man character, with Bell, Stephan & Segundis heading up the mostly-likable secondaries. Not "completely good" but clearly on the good side of the dial. There's certainly no lack of characters to hiss at, though.


Bryan wrote: "I watched the show after reading the book and loved it. ..."

The show hasn't finished airing in the US, yet, but on some levels I've enjoyed it more than the novel. In particular, in the book I thought the whole section in Italy was rather boring (ironic, because the author, Clarke, has commented that the image of a British magician in Venice was one of her key inspirations for putting the book together.) In the BBC adaptation, I thought they did a good job with the Italian trip.

Finally, I finished the novel, and I enjoyed it greatly. It certainly isn't a page-turner, has its lengths, yes, it could be a good deal shorter. But all of it - including the vast amount of footnotes - are charming in their own way.

I especially liked the ending which is open and closed at the same time, leaving a good bit to the imagination. I will dream on for a while, but not as long as it took me to read the book :)

If you're not enjoying it by page 200, then maybe it's not the book you're looking for. Between the Austenisms, the footnotes, and the odd characters, this one is more about the journey than the destination. If you're waiting for plot and action, you'll probably be underwhelmed once it arrives.

Personally, I loved every word of it and wished it was longer. Then again, I liked Infinite Jest, so maybe I'm just weird for footnotes.

I saw the BBC series when it aired in the states and I loved it! I just read the book and loved it too, although I confess to being a bit disappointed by Strange's character in the book as I liked the additional humanity he had in the series and preferred how the show handled (view spoiler)[his wife's "death" -- not just emotionally but the role of the mosswood imitation, how he needed to acknowledge "her" as his wife for Arabella's abduction to be successful.

I loved Norrell in both versions and despite his many wrong actions, I could still understand and sympathize with him and felt his pain at the break with Strange.

One thing I have been wondering about though (and can't help wishing some further conclusion was brought to) is the conclusion of Lady Pole's part of the story. I was surprised at her judgement of Strange as the worse of the two magicians and how she blamed Strange's "cold masculine magic" for what happened to Mrs. Strange. Did she not understand what had happened or was she right in some way? (hide spoiler)]

Erin wrote: "and how she blamed Strange's "cold masculine magic" for what happened to Mrs. Strange"

Well, if neither Norrell nor Strange got involved in magic, they would not have attracted the attention of the Man with the Thistledown Hair and so what happened to Mrs Strange probably wouldn't have happened.

Rule #1 - never deal with faeries, it never ends well...

I really enjoyed the little twist at the end where you find out that (view spoiler)[ Norrell and Strange were just pawns in the Raven King's plan to bring magic back to the world, it wasn't really their idea after all much as they liked to inflate their importance (hide spoiler)]. That made me read the book a second time last year to see it differently with that knowledge.

I don't know if Clarke will ever get to her sequel, I know she had some medical issues that derailed that plan. I'd love to return to that world again.

Andrea wrote: "Erin wrote: "and how she blamed Strange's "cold masculine magic" for what happened to Mrs. Strange"

Well, if neither Norrell nor Strange got involved in magic, they would not have attracted the at..."

True, but it was Mr. Norrell who got the fairy involved. I feel like there must be some further explanation than just that Strange also did magic, especially for Lady Pole to say that he was most at fault. I am accustomed to lines saying even more than what is meant at the surface and I can’t help feeling that I am missing something here.

As to the twist you mentioned, I enjoyed that too! It gives another perspective and perhaps especially explains Strange, although I can’t help thinking of some “chance” elements from Mr. Norrell’s past too...

I'm sad to only recently be discovering this community and these groups. Recently finished a reread of JSaMN and it is really one of the best. Would love any thoughts and discussions... here's my review:
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

I have it on my TBR -- still haven't read it.

Dean wrote: "I'm sad to only recently be discovering this community and these groups. Recently finished a reread of JSaMN and it is really one of the best. Would love any thoughts and discussions... here's my r..."

It is truly one of my all-time favorites. The length, depth, and intricacy of the book turns off some readers, but I find it to be delightful. Just watched the BBC series out of a desire to stay in Clarke's world a bit longer and, although as well done as it probably could be, it is nothing more than a series of scenes from the book.

I loved this book too, I think I've read it two, maybe three times now. She did some wonderful worldbuilding, and also captured the, well not "evil" nature of the fae, but just the fact that they don't care how they treat us kind of thing. Like a force of nature, we think a tornado is bad, but its just wind, it doesn't care that it does or doesn't hurt anyone.

Yeah, it reminded me of legit "Celtic myths and legends" I read as a kid.

I haven't read this but very much enjoyed the TV adaptation. It's one of those books I will get to at some point but it's kind of on a back burner because having seen the adaptation I know the story. Obviously the book will have a lot more depth, that goes without saying but knowing what happens removes the imperative somewhat. Because I was so impressed with 'Piranesi' I will get to it eventually though. Susanna Clarke is clearly a spectacular talent.

This book will always have a special place in my heart. Here's my old review: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

Robin wrote: "I haven't read this but very much enjoyed the TV adaptation. It's one of those books I will get to at some point but it's kind of on a back burner because having seen the adaptation I know the stor..."

I have same feeling for Outlander. I read the first book 5 years ago and only got around to the second one this year. But I'm up to date on the TV series. My sister already dug out the third and lent it to me but, yeah, not going to get to it this year so hope she doesn't mind my sitting on it for a while.

Well, she might mind if I sat on it literally... ;)