![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
idiosyncreant.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
queensthiefOn...Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell! No Surprise!
Mr has no period after it in that book, by the way. Which I thought was interesting. It must be historically accurate, I believe it, I just never noticed it elsewhere.
Now here's the reason I'm posting about this book after a whole week of effusions in commentland. There really are a lot of draws that I think are pertinent to the ThiefLovers. I may cross-post this to my Xanga, where I have a blogring entitled Eugenides Lovers Conspicuous. Since I might be spoilery (I'll warn you, of course, in the text) and definitely long-winded I award you a cut.
Mr has no period after it in that book, by the way. Which I thought was interesting. It must be historically accurate, I believe it, I just never noticed it elsewhere.
Now here's the reason I'm posting about this book after a whole week of effusions in commentland. There really are a lot of draws that I think are pertinent to the ThiefLovers. I may cross-post this to my Xanga, where I have a blogring entitled Eugenides Lovers Conspicuous. Since I might be spoilery (I'll warn you, of course, in the text) and definitely long-winded I award you a cut.
In reviews/blurbs I read, I got an impression that Jonathan Strange was going to be a Nathaniel (of The Bartimaeus Trilogy, which I also can't recommend enough) sort. Brilliant student of rare master, rebellious and overconfident, getting himself into almost more trouble than he's worth.
But would such a Titan-sized book do anything that standard? No. It's much more subtle than that. It is, after all, written in the style of so many comedies of manners or societal satire.
Jonathan Strange is not Gen, just as he is not Nathaniel: he is a richly drawn character of his very own.
But is there a comparison to make? Oh yes. To both. If you are, as I am systematically here proving myself to be, fond of the brilliant ones--especially if they're a little to aware of their own brilliance--and heroes who make irrationally grand gestures and radical decisions that might just save the world (if it doesn't explode first), there is a very satisfying likeness. He also enters as an adult, from his second appearance, married.
I also was under the impression that it centered around the Napoleonic wars, that it was a Dicken's lengthed, striving-for-period-feel novel. This was also more wrong in it's impression, than it's facts veracity would lead one to believe.
Clarke is not striving for period. If she makes any errors, it's likely in favor of pandering to its audience (i.e: me) which never met a 1700's British person outside a novel from that time. It is completely embodied in cultural, lingual, and personal elements of the era.
Which sets of the reality of the magic she portrays quite wickedly.
Norrell reminds me of Casaubon from Middlemarch; a pendantic old man making a great life change he hardly understands and suffering for it. He's a jealous, suspicious, vain bugger who seems so tame you miss his complete selfishness even while she's making it abundantly clear--even stating it outright!
There is a similarity to MWT's books in the way magic breaks in, almost despite the characters--but of course it feels very different. That's why we read more than one book in our lives, right?
There is a surprising darkness that emerges in the second volume (Q of Attolia, anyone?) There is rather unresolved relationships at the end.
The magic, though, is so gorgeous and new (those of you who have read it, please tell me you wish there really was a Raven King to read up on, too, because I'm lonely without him) that the lack of absolute cunning and wool-over-the-eyes that follows Gen like a nimbus isn't missed.
Much. After all, for that we await the fourth of his adventures.
And there you are, no spoilers after all. I really want to hear from other people who have read it about any thoughts they have about the book in this vein.
But would such a Titan-sized book do anything that standard? No. It's much more subtle than that. It is, after all, written in the style of so many comedies of manners or societal satire.
Jonathan Strange is not Gen, just as he is not Nathaniel: he is a richly drawn character of his very own.
But is there a comparison to make? Oh yes. To both. If you are, as I am systematically here proving myself to be, fond of the brilliant ones--especially if they're a little to aware of their own brilliance--and heroes who make irrationally grand gestures and radical decisions that might just save the world (if it doesn't explode first), there is a very satisfying likeness. He also enters as an adult, from his second appearance, married.
I also was under the impression that it centered around the Napoleonic wars, that it was a Dicken's lengthed, striving-for-period-feel novel. This was also more wrong in it's impression, than it's facts veracity would lead one to believe.
Clarke is not striving for period. If she makes any errors, it's likely in favor of pandering to its audience (i.e: me) which never met a 1700's British person outside a novel from that time. It is completely embodied in cultural, lingual, and personal elements of the era.
Which sets of the reality of the magic she portrays quite wickedly.
Norrell reminds me of Casaubon from Middlemarch; a pendantic old man making a great life change he hardly understands and suffering for it. He's a jealous, suspicious, vain bugger who seems so tame you miss his complete selfishness even while she's making it abundantly clear--even stating it outright!
There is a similarity to MWT's books in the way magic breaks in, almost despite the characters--but of course it feels very different. That's why we read more than one book in our lives, right?
There is a surprising darkness that emerges in the second volume (Q of Attolia, anyone?) There is rather unresolved relationships at the end.
The magic, though, is so gorgeous and new (those of you who have read it, please tell me you wish there really was a Raven King to read up on, too, because I'm lonely without him) that the lack of absolute cunning and wool-over-the-eyes that follows Gen like a nimbus isn't missed.
Much. After all, for that we await the fourth of his adventures.
And there you are, no spoilers after all. I really want to hear from other people who have read it about any thoughts they have about the book in this vein.
no subject
Date: 8/4/07 02:02 am (UTC)Um um um also I love JS&MN!