jpmedina's review against another edition
adventurous
funny
mysterious
reflective
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.75
leannaaker's review
3.0
Wow, this book was a commitment. I was relatively entertained up through half of the book. The tail end REALLY dragged. I found myself skimming to get to the end. The *idea* of this book is great. I wavered between 2 and 3 stars for awhile.
apollinares's review against another edition
adventurous
dark
emotional
hopeful
mysterious
reflective
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
4.75
What an absolute beast of a book.
Emulating the writing styles of the likes of Dickens, Austen, and Wilde to an astonishing degree, Clarke takes the reader on an alternative history journey of garganguan proportions. Spanning years, the narrative unfolds around the titular magicians, Johnathan Strange and Gilbert Norrell, in their attempts to bring magic back to England, as well as many other characters affected by said attempts. I found myself swept along by the story, and enjoyed it greatly despite its length.
I want to compare this book to Les Miserables, a narrative that also spans years, switching between multiple characters (some - allegorical, some - very sympathetic, others - not at all) and weaving their stories together in one convoluted tapestry. It's compelling, it's epic, and I couldn't put it down. Between the footnotes and the storyline itself, Clarke has created an immersive, real-feeling alternative England, whose fictional heart pulses with life and centuries of dormant magic. Norrell and Strange are both awful people, and yet I'm absolutely here for them.
Also Childermass deserves better, smh.
Emulating the writing styles of the likes of Dickens, Austen, and Wilde to an astonishing degree, Clarke takes the reader on an alternative history journey of garganguan proportions. Spanning years, the narrative unfolds around the titular magicians, Johnathan Strange and Gilbert Norrell, in their attempts to bring magic back to England, as well as many other characters affected by said attempts. I found myself swept along by the story, and enjoyed it greatly despite its length.
I want to compare this book to Les Miserables, a narrative that also spans years, switching between multiple characters (some - allegorical, some - very sympathetic, others - not at all) and weaving their stories together in one convoluted tapestry. It's compelling, it's epic, and I couldn't put it down. Between the footnotes and the storyline itself, Clarke has created an immersive, real-feeling alternative England, whose fictional heart pulses with life and centuries of dormant magic. Norrell and Strange are both awful people, and yet I'm absolutely here for them.
Also Childermass deserves better, smh.
megansgc's review
2.0
I really wanted to like this. It has all the right elements for a book I should like. But I just couldn’t. The lack of plot, the meandering story, the disconnectedness of so many pieces. I think a good editing, getting this below 500 pages and connecting the dots could have made a great book
melhara's review against another edition
slow-paced
1.0
This book had no business being 32 hours long for the audiobook or 1006 pages long for the paperback copy.
The last 1000+ page book I read was Les Misérables in which I thought the length was justified for the most part (except for maybe about 200 or so pages) because the background context that was provided for each character was fascinating and played a huge part in understanding the plot and character development. The same cannot be said for this book.
This book could have easily been condensed into 200 or so pages and maybe even turned into a novella because, for the most part, this book was just full of meaningless ramblings, fluffy prose, and unimportant and boring filler information that doesn't add much to the overall plot.
The last 1000+ page book I read was Les Misérables in which I thought the length was justified for the most part (except for maybe about 200 or so pages) because the background context that was provided for each character was fascinating and played a huge part in understanding the plot and character development. The same cannot be said for this book.
This book could have easily been condensed into 200 or so pages and maybe even turned into a novella because, for the most part, this book was just full of meaningless ramblings, fluffy prose, and unimportant and boring filler information that doesn't add much to the overall plot.
laurenjpegler's review against another edition
3.0
Originally posted on my blog Bookish Byron
I’ve had Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell sitting on my shelf for a few years now, and I kept putting it off due to its size. I used to be a timid reader, and 1,005 pages was too much for me. Now, for some reason, I don’t mind large novels anymore. I devour them, just like I did with this one. If you’re unfamiliar with the story, Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell is set during the Napoleonic Wars, and details the rebirth of English magic. Strange and Norrell are said to be England’s greatest, and only ‘true’, magicians. The novel follows them on their adventure, investigating the nature of “Englishness”, the boundaries between reason and unreason, and Northern and Southern English cultural stereotypes.
For the most part, I did really enjoy this novel. I only had one real issue with it. For a novel that is already a thousand pages long, the surplus footnotes were a little unnecessary. I understand that they added greater context to the narrative, but it would have read the exact same without them. They didn’t add anything to the actual story, just background information. If they were important, then there wouldn’t have been footnotes at all. Eventually, I gave up reading them altogether. It started to feel like I was reading a history book. This was both a good and bad thing. I question if I had, would I have enjoyed the story more? I don’t know. I would have made the effort if the novel wasn’t already massive.
Despite this, there was a lot to like about this book. Firstly, the host of characters. The narrative didn’t just centre on Strange or Norrell, but also examined the role of women and servants. I really liked Childermass as he exceeded the boundaries of an ordinary 19th century servant. I also help but like Norrell’s character. He isn’t the nicest of the bunch, and is a little outdated in his views, but I see a lot of myself in him. Mostly with his reading habits. He is obsessed with books – he has an extensive collection, won’t let anyone near them, and would much rather be reading. Arabella was another well written character; she was strong-willed, patient, and understanding. I definitely think there is a character to suit everyone’s preferences.
As a lover of 19th century literature, I loved the pastiche of the century. Clarke mimicked a lot of writers, such as Charles Dickens and Jane Austen, which I thought added an extra layer to the novel. When researching this novel online, Clarke states that an Austenesque narrative can be found in the domestic scenes, whereas a Dickensian narrative can be found through the detail and descriptions. I didn’t notice it at first, but I couldn’t help but find it on every page after reading that. I thought this was definitely a defining quality of the novel – it made the story feel authentic. It really didn’t feel like a novel that was written in the early 2000s, but a novel was that written during the time it was set.
Clarke explored a lot of themes in this novel, hence the size of it. My favourite was definitely the relationship between rationality and irrationality or, for a want of better phrasing, normality vs. madness. Although discussed in relation to a lot of characters, it was best highlighted through Lady Pole. Clarke abided by Gubar and Gilbert’s reading that a ‘madwoman’ is never in the public sphere, but is locked away somewhere. Lady Pole was taken away to Lost-Hope every night, a place where she was amongst fairies and other beings. She was murderous and vengeful in this place, but was totally ‘normal’ in reality. Clarke definitely played with 19th century tropes, and the length of the novel really allowed you to unpick them in full detail.
Overall, I really enjoyed Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell. It could have been shortened to allow a better narrative flow, but I can see why Clarke went down this route. I know that she is currently working on a sequel novel that I’m dying to read, and she has a collection of short stories, The Ladies of Grace Adieu and Other Stories, that is connected to the world of this novel. I would definitely recommend it if it sounds like something you’d enjoy!
I’ve had Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell sitting on my shelf for a few years now, and I kept putting it off due to its size. I used to be a timid reader, and 1,005 pages was too much for me. Now, for some reason, I don’t mind large novels anymore. I devour them, just like I did with this one. If you’re unfamiliar with the story, Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell is set during the Napoleonic Wars, and details the rebirth of English magic. Strange and Norrell are said to be England’s greatest, and only ‘true’, magicians. The novel follows them on their adventure, investigating the nature of “Englishness”, the boundaries between reason and unreason, and Northern and Southern English cultural stereotypes.
For the most part, I did really enjoy this novel. I only had one real issue with it. For a novel that is already a thousand pages long, the surplus footnotes were a little unnecessary. I understand that they added greater context to the narrative, but it would have read the exact same without them. They didn’t add anything to the actual story, just background information. If they were important, then there wouldn’t have been footnotes at all. Eventually, I gave up reading them altogether. It started to feel like I was reading a history book. This was both a good and bad thing. I question if I had, would I have enjoyed the story more? I don’t know. I would have made the effort if the novel wasn’t already massive.
Despite this, there was a lot to like about this book. Firstly, the host of characters. The narrative didn’t just centre on Strange or Norrell, but also examined the role of women and servants. I really liked Childermass as he exceeded the boundaries of an ordinary 19th century servant. I also help but like Norrell’s character. He isn’t the nicest of the bunch, and is a little outdated in his views, but I see a lot of myself in him. Mostly with his reading habits. He is obsessed with books – he has an extensive collection, won’t let anyone near them, and would much rather be reading. Arabella was another well written character; she was strong-willed, patient, and understanding. I definitely think there is a character to suit everyone’s preferences.
As a lover of 19th century literature, I loved the pastiche of the century. Clarke mimicked a lot of writers, such as Charles Dickens and Jane Austen, which I thought added an extra layer to the novel. When researching this novel online, Clarke states that an Austenesque narrative can be found in the domestic scenes, whereas a Dickensian narrative can be found through the detail and descriptions. I didn’t notice it at first, but I couldn’t help but find it on every page after reading that. I thought this was definitely a defining quality of the novel – it made the story feel authentic. It really didn’t feel like a novel that was written in the early 2000s, but a novel was that written during the time it was set.
Clarke explored a lot of themes in this novel, hence the size of it. My favourite was definitely the relationship between rationality and irrationality or, for a want of better phrasing, normality vs. madness. Although discussed in relation to a lot of characters, it was best highlighted through Lady Pole. Clarke abided by Gubar and Gilbert’s reading that a ‘madwoman’ is never in the public sphere, but is locked away somewhere. Lady Pole was taken away to Lost-Hope every night, a place where she was amongst fairies and other beings. She was murderous and vengeful in this place, but was totally ‘normal’ in reality. Clarke definitely played with 19th century tropes, and the length of the novel really allowed you to unpick them in full detail.
Overall, I really enjoyed Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell. It could have been shortened to allow a better narrative flow, but I can see why Clarke went down this route. I know that she is currently working on a sequel novel that I’m dying to read, and she has a collection of short stories, The Ladies of Grace Adieu and Other Stories, that is connected to the world of this novel. I would definitely recommend it if it sounds like something you’d enjoy!
thesupermassive's review against another edition
adventurous
dark
mysterious
tense
medium-paced
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
4.25