Amph Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Strange_%26_Mr_Norrell

Picked up this book today, as I thought it had an interesting premise, plus the added interest that it is an award winner.

Anyone here read it, if so, what are your thoughts?

 

I've seen it at Borders and though it looked interesting, let me know how it is.

 

Saw it at the library a couple times, but didn't get it.

 

I read it. It's an interesting book with a very developed backstory, and it really captures the timeframe with historical asides and even its spelling.

 

I've tried to read it 3 times now and it's really hard to get into.


There is so much promise but I just can't grab it.

 

I'm a few chapters in so far, with staggered reading. Will let you know more about my thoughts as I delve deeper into the novel.

 

Is there any similarity to the Prestige at all?

 

Not so far. Admittedly haven't picked up the book for about a week, as I got stuck reading "Inside the Third Reich" by Albert Speer. Fascinating book.

 

I liked it. The extent of the footnotes really impressed me. There are places were the footnotes go on for pages. It reminded me of Lord of the Rings in way.

 

My plan is to read the story without referencing the footnotes at all, then re-read it again with the footnotes.

 

I liked the book a lot. A great fusion of 19th-century style with mysticism and magic that really captivates and enraptures the reader (in that case, me). Like others, I also liked the footnotes a lot--very interesting. At first, they add to the mystique of the novel, letting you know there's more that meets the eye. Later in the novel, they confirm what's going on at the moment.

 

So, you DO have to read the footnotes, they are essential? My suggested idea of reading the book once through, then reading it again with the footnotes is a bad idea?

 

I really despised this book.

 

Why?

 

I've tried it again and again I'm getting nowhere.


After the fifth attempt I'm just going to give up as no book should be this painfull to read.

 

For what reasons?

 

*Sigh* You asked.

Here's my review from Amazon:

"Let's start with what this book is not:

1. It's not Jane Austen: Jane may have used archaic language, but she is neither boring nor long-winded. If this was a genuine imitation of Austen, it would be one quarter of the length. Austen studied economy. Clarke does not. And Clarke, though she tries, also can't manage Austen's wit; she imitates it without having it.

2. It's not `Harry Potter for Adults': shrewd marketing ploy, but there is no resemblance other than the inclusion of magic. Rowling isn't much of a technician, but she is an excellent storyteller, with a casual, throw-away wit, which makes her work the exact opposite of this book. "JS & MN" is so calculated it's practically a literary computer.

3. It's not Charles Dickens: Charley is long-winded, but at least his characters have life. And he was a lot later.

4. It's not a Victorian novel. Victoria's reign started in 1837, and this book is set about thirty years or so earlier. So it's supposed to be Georgian pastiche, but it never comes alive, as some historical novels do. I have never understood the point of trying to use an archaic writing style if the culture and ethos that produced it is long gone. I hated Charles Palliser's "The Quincunx" to which this book bears an unfortunate resemblance; it was a similar exercise in stylistic futility. But if you're going to do it, get your idiom right. I'm sure Clarke thought using what she deemed to be the style of the book's setting was clever, but that's all it is. It's a cake-walk: a needlessly elaborate dance, the point of which is to show off, rather than make an aestetic point. The style always feels forced and fights the content the whole way, eventually winning a Pyrrhic victory.

5. It's not interesting: When you read your first dull resurrection, you know you're in trouble. I had to flog myself to read farther: life's way, way too short. And I've read and enjoyed some very dry books in my time. The only remaining mystery is all those glowing reviews. This isn't Austen, or Rowling, or Dickens, or even Thackeray: it's Mrs. Humphrey Ward. (A once very popular, and now completely forgotten 18th century novelist.) To adapt one of the book's own bad jokes: "'Tis a Pity She's a Bore."

 

I've started it, but put it away for a little while - it's slow going, but it's not a bad read.

 

It's a wonderful book that I really love. The characters are very interesting and ingenious. The story are somtimes slow-moving but in the end the pace turns out to be one of the thing I like about the book. There are also some very fascinating surroundings that strengthen the story and the characters.

Simply put, a "one of a kind" book that I personally love and admire.


Has anyone read Susanna Clarke's collection of short stories in her book The Ladies of Grace Adieu and Other Stories? Is it good and will I like it if I love Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell?

 

Upping.

 

Ah, I had forgotten about this. I'm about halfway through the book now, after taking a very long break from it. I've actually really gotten into it, reading a couple chapters each night.

 

Just finished this yesterday afternoon - fantastic read. My review: http://jeditrilobite.wordpress.com/2009/01/11/jonathan-strange-and-mr-norrell/

 

Yeah. You need to read the footnotes. That's one of things I liked about the book, actually.

 

Are the footnotes sort of like in Hitchhiker's Guide or The Princess Bride?

 

Footnotes are good! Like in the Bartimaeus Trilogy... that had footnotes and it was cute.