Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell.

This is the current book I am reading. I have not entered it into my Library yet. It is fairly good though. Reccomend it to those who like their Tolkien with a touch of Charlotte Bronte.

Strange, I never really got much of a flavour of Tolkein despite the promotional material for the book. The Bronte / Austen Regency romance aspect is quite obvious though.

If you like your fantasy with a deliberatel nod back towards an older style of story telling you might also enjoy Ian R. Macleod's The Light Ages which has a Dickensian feel and explores some of the same themes.

It's funny... I have trouble recommending Strange and Norrell, but I really liked it. It's a tremendously well-written book that has complete fidelity to the idea of a Regency novel with magic included. Unfortunately, this means that it bores the hell out of most of the same people who thought Jane Austen was boring (hard to believe, I know).

Still, I thought it was terrific, and I really look forward to whatever Clarke produces next.

Yup, I'm another fan. But I know plenty who thought it was boring, and couldn't figure out what it was all about.

I guess I have to give it another go. I never made it past page 42. Unfortunately I have the brick version of it and it's extremely big, heavy and unpractical to carry around. Which is unfortunate as I get most of my reading done on the train commuting.

I really liked this book, too- but then, I'm a Regency aficionado, and pretty much anything that takes place in that era will be read or scanned by me at some point :-) I thought she managed to do the alternate history wonderfully. The only problem I had with the book was that I REALLY wished Arabella's character had been more fully developed. I really liked her.

I just finished reading Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell and I quite enjoyed the book. However, the first time I tried reading it I gave up. I found the first part very boring, but after that the book really got interesting.
I enjoyed the all the historical fact, although I didn't like the way she describe the Portuguese :-P
And I agree with you aarti. Arabella character was great but got lost in the book.

I've owned it for about a week, but I haven't started it yet. Interestingly, it's the most owned but unread book on LT according to the "unread" tag.

I read it and loved it. The footnotes were great. Some very dry humour in it, which I quite enjoyed.

It won the Hugo Award last year (not that common for a first novel!), so obviously a lot of people took a liking to it. I'm reading it for my book group now, though it's been on my wishlist for ages. I'm really adoring the mythological underpinnings to the story that Susanna Clarke spent much time on. Though I have to confess, I am not typically interested in Regency fiction of any sort, so the less fantastic parts do occasionally wear on me.

I haven't read this yet (been staying away from brick length books for a bit after the epic Judas Unchained but I did not like The Light Ages at all, so perhaps I will avoid this one altogether?

Well, I couldn't get into The Light Ages and enjoyed Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell. So don't necessarily let that dissuade you.

I'm liking it so far, but it is very heavy (physically I mean), and I just moved, so I haven't touched it in a few weeks. I can understand people being a bit bored with the style, but I think the key is to remember that it is a modern book, and thus the style itself is a commentary on the "traditional" novel of that style. If you treat it as a novel of the period of which it is being written, I think it becomes much harder.

Anyway, looking forward to continuing with it on my vacation this week!

I liked it a lot -- it's definitely a rereadable book, as soon as I work on my upper arm strength...

JS is one of those books that I was sure I was going to love. I love stuff set in the Regency period, I love books like Caroline Stevermer's A College of Magics. I even wrote my college honor's thesis on magic and science in the 16th and 17th century. I wanted to love JS! I never finished reading it. Go figure. May be if I pick it up again, it will click. I will say that I loved all the footnotes. I love fictional footnotes in works of fiction about non-existant books!

Here is a list of other books that I think go with Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell. Regency (or other) alternate history with magic genre...This is just off the top of my head. May be people have other books to reccommend?
I'd love to hear about some books I've never read!

Patricia C. Wrede Mairelon the Magician and Magician's Ward

Caroline Stevermer and Patricia C. Wrede Sorcery and Cecilia and The Grand Tour

Caroline Stevermer A College of Magics and A Scholar of Magics

Pamela Dean Tam Lin (not regency but feels like it fits into this category)

John C. Wright Orphans of Chaos

It took me two tries to read it, but once I got going the second time I really enjoyed it, so I'm glad I tried again. I have the hardcover edition and like others have mentioned, the actual, physical size of it was rather daunting.

bluetyson, it was interesting to see you mention that as a struggle after reading Judas Unchained. I gave up on that myself because I couldn't face that many pages in the hardcover edition from the library. I plan to go back to it at a later date, either with the paperback or maybe an ebook, as that's only as big and heavy as my PDA. That's how I read Pandora's Star and I found it much easier that way.

I have The Light Ages on my TBR shelf.

Katissima, what did you think of Orphans of Chaos? I thought it looked interesting and it's on mt wish list, probably for when it comes out in paperback. I read The Golden Age but wasn't inspired to keep on wiyh that series.

I am currently reading this, I chose this book because it was huge. I think thisis one of those books that you will either love or never finish reading.

Re: message 16
You enabler you ;) More books to be added to the list

Katissima, another recent one that's similar (even set during the Napoleonic wars) is Naomi Novik's Temeraire trilogy. She's a librarything author, too!

I also really like Teresa Edgerton's Goblin Moon and The Gnome's Engine. The Queen's Necklace is also set in a quasi-Georgian setting, but I don't think the plot is as tight as in the other two works.

Oh, and a more recent one, The Lies of Locke Lamora, which is set in a sort of Venice during what I gather to be around the mid-18th century. On some other world :-)

Clarke announced the publication of her next book last week when the mass market o Strange and Norrell was released. It is a series of short stories some of which include Strange and Norell. Also (Mckiernan )is working on a new (Mithgar) book. I am part of OneeyedCrow on Yahoo groups, he's the oderator and says that is what he is working on.

Yes The Ladies Of Grace Adieu is already in two LT catalogues (amazon pre-orders most likely) and I know someone who was sent the ARC. A number of the stories will have appeared before - the title story appeared in the Starlight 1 anthology so I am waiting to see just how much new content is in the book.

On the subject of Orphans of Chaos. I picked it up because of this blurb in Publisher's Weekly:

"At first glance, Wright's myth-infused fantasy looks like something older Harry Potter fans might enjoy with its creaky British boarding school setting and its five ageless orphans--Colin, Quentin, Victor, Vanity and Amelia--each with a supernatural gift. But the underlying theme of dominance and submission plus a fair amount of physics and theology make this definitely a book for adults. A spanking scene involving the precocious Amelia Armstrong Windrose, who can travel into the fourth dimension, may offend some readers, but others will find it playful. Wright (Mists of Everness) doesn't fully develop the intriguing premise of these unusual students trapped in a school run by Greek gods as hostages in a bizarre war, but presumably he'll do so in later installments. Those who like sophisticated fantasy with a mild erotic charge will be most rewarded. Agent, Sternig & Byrne Literary Agency. (Nov.)" (Publisher's Weekly Vol. 252 Issue 37, p47)

I couldn't imagine all of the above in one book. When I saw it, it also had a pretty cover and a character named Amelia Armstrong Windrose...I am easily amused I guess!

I found the physics to be a little much...I kept wondering if the author actually knew what he was talking about. I thought the "mild erotic charge" was gratuitous and kind of wierd. A case might be made that it was necessary for the "dominance and submission theme" (which was pronounced), but let's just say that I came away thinking that a female author wouldn't have written it like that.

how could anyone not like this book!? i thought it was great. i bought it right when it came out and have already re-read it...thinking to re-read it during our first snowstorm!
i thought all of the characters were great and that clarke's idea was a great one - can't wait to read the ladies of grace adieu. the fairies and the footnotes were my favorite parts, i must say. the stories about the fairies were so spooky (the family that disappeared into the wardrobe; lascelles much deserved end). as a huge harry potter fan, i enjoyed the magic that the characters created.

I really enjoyed this book, but it took me ages to read, because after reading about 15-20 pages my brain would just give up and I couldn't read any more. I'd have to go do something else for an hour or two and then come back and try again.

I was actually surprised how much I liked it, because I'd read some Jane Austen a few years ago (Sense and Sensibility, I think), and I couldn't get into that AT ALL.

Yes, your martial artists types could certainly use Peter F. Hamilton books as weapons.

:)

If you want to check out something which is written in a style resembling older and familiar novels I would recommend that you check out The Phoenix Guards by Steven Brust which is a kind of The three musketeers story. Five hundred years after is more of the same.

Speaking of Steven Brust, I would also recommend Freedom & Necessity by him and Emma Bull.

(Damn, no touchstone. Freedom & Necessity is here.)

For those daunted by the size of Jonathan Strange in hardcover, you might want to listen to an audiobook version of it instead. I got it from the library on CDs, and it was wonderful to listen to! I liked the narrator's voice (important to me) and didn't have to lug a huge tome around with me or hold it up in bed. When the paperback version comes out, I'm going to read it again. When I have, I'll report on which version I enjoyed most. :)

Storeetllr: The paperback version has been out for months, at least over here. I don't know if we got the British version and it was released earlier than the American though. However I was too impatient and got the brick-version myself. For that reason I still haven't finished it as I do most of my reading commuting.

Storeetllr,
According to amazon.com the mass market paperback edition was released on August 1, 2006.

Just as an aside, here in Canada, even my local Shoppers Drug Mart has been carrying them for the last couple of weeks.

Thanks! I'll run right out and get the paperback version. I was a the local book store last week doing some browsing but didn't notice it.

Did anyone have difficulty reading the mass market paperback? I've been thinking of going out and buying it, but it looks like the inside margins are uncomfortably narrow, and I don't want to destroy the book. I'm almost leaning toward the trade paperback, but it's so big....

Sorry, but I for one could not get past the first half of the book. Much as I liked the author's magic, I found her plot slow, slow, slow. The footnotes tended to be more interesting that what was actually happening in the story. I kept thinking this book could have been half as lengthy without any great harm being done to the plot, the characters -- or my eyes. I enjoy large novels -- Diana Gabaldon and Margaret George come to mind -- but Ms. Clarke is just too wordy; reminded me of the interminable verbosity of Henry James' novels. I doubt I'll ever finish Strange and Norell; too many other books are calling.

****SPOILER for Johnathan Strange and Mr. Norrell ******

As I am a big fan of the Austen/Bronte/Hardy/James, I thought I'd enjoy Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell.

Alas, no. Things just didn't seem to happen. I never felt the strain of tension, the omigodwhatisgoingtohappennext?!? (ok, maybe a little bit when his wife was abducted and taken into the fairy realm) even when I should have. I cruised through the first half of the book feeling rather "meh" about it, and by the time I got half-way I had so much time invested that I couldn't just NOT finish it.

The most interesting bits were the footnotes. I did look forward to those.

khrister -
Thanks for the suggestion of Freedom and Necessity. I have all of Steven Brust's Vlad Taltos books and Emma Bull's War for the Oaks is an urban fantasy favorite of mine. I had no idea they wrote a book together! It's going on my "To Be Purchased ASAP" list right away.

I'm reading it right now, and thus far I really like it. It's got a fantastic feel to it; I love the footnotes, and I really appreciate how she's stayed true to a lot of the spellings and phrasings. The only think that's putting me off is how heavy it is! I borrowed it from the library, and the only copy I could find was the trade paperback. I've been searching for a mass market copy every time I'm by there, (I work right near my city's largest library), but so far I haven't had any luck. I think I'll probably find one right after I've finished it.

I think the Tolkein reference in most reviewers minds is directly linked to the fact that many have never read any other fantasy than the great J.R.R.T. The most Tolkeinesque portion of the book was a heavy, if entertaining, footnoted history. I enjoyed the book immensely for this reason, it was like a book within a book.

Henry James like? Urggh. Jane Austen being mentioned as well is certainly not moving this up the large to be read list! :)

I loved Jonathan Strange and Mister Norrell. Although hefty, I whizzed through it far quicker than I manage with other, shorter books. The characterization was excellent and the historical setting evocative but it was the ideas that caught me. They showed so much more imagination than most pseudo-Tolkien, or (shudder) pseudo-medieval fantasy (I'm a medieval historian, so don't get me started on the problems with those.) Although I have a lot of "fantasy" tags in my library, I do tend to avoid standard "epic" fantasy, so JS&MN was ideal. For those that are intimidated by the size, I'd heartily recommend The Ladies of Grace Adieu. JS&MN imagination and charm and in bite-sized chunks.

Guernicus - I find it interesting you liked the ideas in JS&MN. I thought that was one of the major weaknesses of the novel.
There was never any real explanation as to the nature of magic - I was puzzled as to how MN suddenly was able to use magic just by reading books; JS, at times, didn't even seem to use that; and yet other people couldn't work magic. Strange was able to divert rivers, and more cities across continents without any consequences. It was too fantastical, there was no structure, no rigour to it.

The other big question is - if there is English magic, why isn't there Spanish or French or Italian magic? If Wellington could use Stange, why couldn't the French use their own magician?

Clarke appears to be so wrapped up in her characters and her world (too wrapped up, she really needs an editor) to step back a little and deploy some rational thought to problem of magic.

Regarding the footnotes - I think Clarke wanted to use footnotes to give a feeling of veracity to the work but them got carried away again and used them to work in bits of material she couldn't use elsewhere. The book would have had a more magical/mysterious aura if rather than reveal everything (again and again) Clarke held some things back.

jargoneer wrote:
The book would have had a more magical/mysterious aura if rather than reveal everything (again and again) Clarke held some things back.

I found all your comments insightful, jargoneer, but this one stuck out the most to me. I think world-building is very important in a fantasy novel, and like you, I like that hint that authors give that there is MUCH, MUCH more that went on which they choose not to tell you- or, more deliciously, that the narrators of the story assume the readers know, if only because everyone in the story knows the history so well.

However, I really enjoyed JS&MN. I admit that at times, I found the reading a bit tedious, and the footnotes distracting. But I loved the little anecdotes. I think it might have worked just as well if she had given us an appendix, in a Tolkein-like way. Or possibly written some sort of encyclopedia- but from what I hear, she's working on a sequel instead! One, I think, that hardly involves any of the characters in JS&MN. That is sad to me as the character of Arabella fascinates me and I wanted to know much more about her, and to see if JS ever stacked up to deserving her as his wife :-P

The points you bring up are very good ones- but stuff I never actually thought about before now! I think Clarke explained that magic all over had fallen into disuse, but I don't know how it came back into use, as you point out.

jargoneer, I'm wiccan, so I had no problem with someone suddenly being able to use magic by reading books! And the reason JS is so good at it is pure talent. Rigour is good sometimes, but so is leaving some of the mystery. Reality is pretty ambiguous, why should fantasy have to be all fleshed out?

The question then is why was no-one able to perform magic for hundreds of years? If it was just down to reading, and a little talent, then magic would never have disappeared.
As I said earlier, Clarke is incapable of creating any mystery, she can't help explaining everything (apart from anything to do with magic). For me, that suggests she doesn't have a method for magic, and that lack of rigour creates a pantomime atmosphere. How can you treat a book seriously when a character can move a city between continents with no consequences? It's wish fulfillment for children.

What about magic does not qualify as wish fulfillment? How rigourous an explaination do you need for faery roads? The mechanisms don't interest me as much as the story that's being told. I found the adventure delightful and fascinating and that was enough for me.

"Lighten up, it's just fantasy."

Hi, Jargoneer and Littlegeek ~ I'm neither a practicing magician or a wiccan , nor am I a pedantic. Therefore, I had no trouble with the way Clarke wrote the novel. I just figured it was an alternate universe where other rules apply, some of which were set out and some of which weren't, and simply enjoyed the story.

I think it is important to feel that there are rules.

That's a bit harsh calling me a pedant, not to say incorrect - a pedant points out minor inconsistencies, I'm highlighting what I see as a major flaw. I accept that the novel is set in an alternate universe where different rules apply, but in some parts of the novel there seemed to be no rules. A good example is when Strange is with Wellington in Spain, it raised a few questions - why is there no French of Spanish magic? if magic is linked to England then why does it work in Spain? how can there be consequences when Strange moves a river or city, especially since Norrell performs a much more insignificant act of magic earlier in the novel that is crucial to the plot?
I understand that everyone reads novels differently, but I'm interested in whether someone has answers to these questions.

I think I need to stop reading this thread, or on my next read of the novel, I'm going to be analyzing things I didn't think of before! It's interesting to view the debate because for fantasy novels, I'm perfectly able to suspend belief (or maybe I just get too confused by the fantastical aspects to look at them critically).

However, if a historical fiction book has inaccuracies which I am able to note, then it drives me crazy and I can't really enjoy the book.

I think I need to stop reading this thread, or on my next read of the novel, I'm going to be analyzing things I didn't think of before!

LOL you say that like it is a bad thing.

Sorry for necroposting... relatively new to LT.

Anyway, I'm not a fan of Jane Austen et al particularly, and I enjoyed Norrell and Strange. It's big enough that it definitely has its slow patches but never enough to make me say "Argh, No" and put the book down - that's not necessarily a recommendation there are only two books I own that I've not finished, as I do tend to finish them off however poor. (When will LT give us negative ratings?!)

It is certainly written in an older style, but that makes it... quirky I think. The Paths of the Dead, The Lord of Castle Black and Sethra Lavode in the Viscount Adrilanka series by Steven Brust as well as The Phoenix Guards and Five Hundred Years After all make good reading in a similar vein. J. Gregory Keyes's series The Age of Unreason: Newton's Cannon, A Calculus of Angels, Empire of Unreason and Shadows of God are similar in rough outline, set against the rise of Newtonian Mechanics and some other things, but clearly fantasy. The Baroque Cycle by Neal Stephenson is less clearly fantasy but might be worth a read if you liked this style of writing too. Personally I *loathed* Quicksilver but my history of science is good enough that I was bored reading it, but The Confusion and The System of the World were well worth it.

16> Katissima

Did you know there's a third Wrede/Stevermer book? It's The Mislaid Magician (or Ten Years After). I enjoyed it.

I was immediately thinking of those books reading the start of this thread, as a lighter Regency+magic alternative to Strange/Norrell.