Prompted by Henry and other CTers, I’ve been reading, Susanna Clarke’s “Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell, so I was very interested in Henry’s latest Since it’s too long for a comment , I’ve posted my draft review over the fold. Looking at Jennifer Howard’s review article, I think it’s clear that a lot of people are looking for “Harry Potter for adults” and are likely to be disappointed.
Susanna Clarke’s Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell gives the alternate history wheel a new spin, by imagining a starting point at which alternate and real histories have converged. Clarke’s Georgian England is just like the real thing, but has a history in which magician-kings ruled the North until some time in the 14th century.
For reasons that are never entirely clear, magic has faded away until its study has become the domain of gentlemanly antiquarians, ‘theoretical magicians’ who never actually cast a spell. Their comfortable clubs are suddenly disrupted by the emergence of a ‘practical magician’, the enigmatic Gilbert Norrell. He is joined by a student and potential rival Jonathan Strange.
Strange is much the more attractive of the pair, but appearances may deceive. Without anything much in the way of moral qualms, he joins Wellington in wreaking magical havoc on the armies of Napoleon, often finding it difficult to put the world back together afterwards.
Meanwhile, running in parallel, there is a traditional faery story, beginning when Norrell makes the classic mistake of accepting an attractive-seeming bargain from a faery king, to spare a young woman from death in return for ‘half her life’.
The real point of the book, though, is not the story but the style, complete with 18th century spellings and rhetoric. Academic readers will particularly enjoy the footnotes, of which I quote only one:
Horace Tott spent an uneventful life in Cheshire, always intending to write a large book on English magic, but never quite beginning. And so he died at seventy-four, still imagining that he might begin next week, or perhaps the week after that1.
The book has been described as ‘Harry Potter for grownups’, and this is true in a sense, but also misleading. Most of those who loved JK Rowling’s magical version of the Billy Bunter stories will find Clarke’s recreation of the 18th century novel dry, puzzling and far too long. However, those of us with omnivorous tastes in reading may get enjoyment from both.
1 Footnoting the footnote, it was this post by Kieran that convinced me to go out and buy the book straight away.
What I think Clarke gets so beautifully in the novel is the truly uncanny, amoral character of Faery: it is peopled by beings who are (as Tolkien said) not really “supernatural” but rather more fully “natural” than human beings, and who therefore are (like the rest of Nature) indifferent to our concerns. That’s what makes Faery a “perilous country,” as Tolkien puts it in his lovely late story “Smith of Wooten Major,” which captured this Unheimlichkeit better than anything I knew until Clarke’s far more ambitious book came along.
But perhaps Clarke’s greatest stroke of genius is narrating the uncanny perilousness of Faery in that civil, balanced, gently ironic Jane-Austenish voice. The way the narrative substance and the narrator’s style interact with each other is the really special thing about this book.
Okay, here’s my beef with this novel. I’m ready to take flak for it and welcome constructive comments about it. Okay.
She uses the nineteenth-century slow, revelatory mode but doesn’t use it to construct character.
So it’s a fairly hollow pastiche, right? Clever, funny, well-done, I’ll admit. But to slow narrative down as she does without any real payoff if terms either of narrative, character, or sundry other philosophical purposes seems to me to be sheer indulgence.
I’ve only read the book once. Please, someone give me a reason to try again, as so many people seemed to like it.
I found the novel good in parts, but disappointingly lifeless — and also rather puzzling in the way it takes the conventions of fantasy literature and then doesn’t do much with them. It begins as an alternate-reality novel, but gradually you realise it’s nothing of the sort; Clarke isn’t interested in imagining history-as-it-might-have-been, she simply plonks the imaginary world of Faerie into the middle of the real world of nineteenth-century England. The result is a curious amalgam, a not-quite-alternate world in which the irruption of magic into medieval England has apparently made no difference to the subsequent course of European history.
There is also something irritatingly arch about Clarke’s pastiche of Jane Austen. “Look at me, everyone! aren’t I clever! Look at me imitating the immortal Jane! Tee-hee, how whimsical! And guess what? I’ve put footnotes into my novel, just as if I were writing a work of history instead of a work of fiction How playfully postmodernist I am!”
This is Jane Austen slash fiction, an amusing experiment, but not one I’d want to revisit or that anyone else should wish to repeat.
Its not really Jane Austen though, is it? The Jane Austen meets Harry Potter is just shorthand for lazy journos. Its not about marraige, and the master/servant social relations it features are not Austen’s usual stomping ground.
Er, technically, “Jane Austen slash fiction” would have Mr. Darcy hopping into bed with Willoughby. Or similar.
As for JS&MN, I’m enjoying it so far, although I’m only about halfway through. The pastiche aspect is pretty entertaining for me, but I’m something of a lit geek. Whether it adds up to anything more substantial, in my mind, remains to be seen once I finish it.
I suppose lazy journos have glommed onto the “Jane Austen” thing because 1) it’s Regency England and 2) it’s all arch and stuff. It’s also a social novel, as are Austen’s, but Austen is generally more concerned with female society than with geopolitics. It puts me in mind somewhat more of the O’Brian’s Aubrey-Maturin books, but perhaps that’s only on account of the Napoleonic Wars thing.
I haven’t read Jonathan Strange yet (if ever) but some of the remarks in the comments, e.g., Karin’s, remind me that one shouldn’t be too narrowly essentialist about the character of books or genres. To take some examples from Karin, when I read Pride and Prejudice for high school English class, I interpreted it as being primarily about economics. While this was somewhat wilfull, it had a great deal of truth in it. I also remember my teacher making some remarks about Mr. Bennet that made me see the book as being about family dynamics over time, in the manner of The Magnificant Ambersons.
Reversing the medal, I am a fan of the Aubrey-Maturin books but I often describe them, not entirely ironically, as regency romances for boys.
“She uses the nineteenth-century slow, revelatory mode but doesn’t use it to construct character.”
No, she’s constructing a world order. And the dominant character of that world is only revealed—though there are hints—at the very end of the book.
Sherwood Smith, herself a very very sharp author and critic, comments: “I don’t know why Austen keeps being evoked whenever the book is referenced. Well, Austen is an easy flag to wave when a woman writes a book that is set, at least initially, during the Regency period. I have seen a couple of sly, clever homages to Austen, but the feel of the prose is an expert blend of the modern and the period (with Austenian spellings, such as ‘chuse’)— conveying to me a sense of Trollope and Thackeray in scene structure, character descriptions, narrative commentary, etc.” —http://www.livejournal.com/users/sartorias/41186.html
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review