![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
chelseagirlI finished my second read through the book a few weeks back, and as I was asked to lead my book group discussion of it this weekend, I thought I’d put a few points down for discussion and post them here and in the Stones of York community. More by way of notes than as a finished essay. I'd love any feedback or thoughts this might generate, but in any case I needed to pull my thoughts together.
1. Writing style. I’m often bothered by writers who copy the style of an earlier historical period, because generally they get it wrong. Usually it’s better to simply avoid expressions that scream of modernity, and stick with a slightly formal tone. Clarke amazes me because she writes in a very Austen-ian style and she rarely hits a wrong note. I went to a reading/signing she did when the book first came out, and complimented her on that; she said she reread Austen periodically throughout her reading to keep the tone fresh in her head. To me, at least, it feels natural.
2. English magic. What’s interesting is that magic is specifically English in this book; the Raven King instituted it, and, for example, when Norrell and Strange use it against the French in the Napoleonic Wars, the French have nothing corresponding to play against it. What does this say about nationalism, the English character, the rise of Empire? Is it likely/possible that as Empire takes shape, the English may discover magic in places further afield, like India, China, whatnot? Is it *possible* that the Raven King was the only one to import it?
3. Mainstream vs. marginal characters.![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
littlebutfierce pointed me in the direction of an interesting essay in the Whileaway LJ community, wherein cija makes some interesting points. She contends that Lady Pole is the most interesting character in the book, and criticizing Clarke for the absence of more strong female characters. Though I do find Lady Pole fascinating, I find Stephen Black equally interesting – the different is that we see things from Stephen’s point of view and we never see things from Lady Pole’s, so she remains more mysterious. I think, just because I am bothered by ahistorical women characters in historical fiction (and make no doubt, except for magic this is early 19th century England exactly) – anywhere else I expect, nay, demand them -- I’m less bothered by this, but it is interesting that Lady Pole remains the most marginal of the characters. Actually, I’m most interested in the marginal characters in the novel, generally: Lady Pole (female and disempowered, despite her theoretically privileged social position); Arabella Strange (who has a tremendous sense of humor about her situation, but plays second fiddle to English magic in her husband’s life); Stephen Black (racially other, a servant, but as the Gentleman with Thistledown Hair correctly sees, more kingly than anyone else in Britain); Childermass (othered by class), and John Segundus (somehow deeply endearing in his perseverance and his comfort with being second rank but dedicated).
I have to admit Childermass was my favorite character, though all of those others came a close second. I read in an interview somewhere that Clarke intended him as a villain, but that he evolved differently in the writing, which would explain why the earlier descriptions of him as having something of a “twisted root” in his face and “greasy” long black hair are later replaced by his having ancient but respectable black clothing and long black hair without the greasy bit. Of course he does have his own agenda; but as it turns out to be benign (his loyalty to the Raven King rather than the pedantic Norrell is hardly villainy); it’s sad but not surprising that he doesn’t recognize the Raven King when he appears to him (and though the Raven King is eternally young, better looking and better dressed, there is an odd similarity in the descriptions of them so that I’d expected a stronger connection than turned out). The fondness of the rest of Norrell’s servants for him is also a late but illuminating character point; a servant who is superior in intellect to his masters and frustrated by his situation is more likely to be an unpopular sort and he’s not, which would have been a surprise at an earlier stage in the book, but isn't by the time we get there.
4. John, John and John. So besides Jonathan Strange, we’ve got John Segundus, John Childermass, and John Uskglass, the Raven King. Since Segundus and Childermass were both Northerners, we can assume that they were named after the Raven King and that the name is extremely common there. But wow, the ratio of people named John in this book is immensely high.
5. The Anti-Romanticism of the Text. Jonathan is good at falling in love; he adores Arabella before he has her and he starts to fall for Miss Greysteel when he thinks Arabella is dead. He is capable of sacrificing himself and perhaps half the world in order to save Arabella; there’s no doubt of the depth of his love. BUT, he’s a neglectful husband, perfectly willing to spend the bulk of his time with Norrell instead of Arabella; perfectly happy to go off to the wars for several years, whereas the unmarried Norrell will not. Arabella treats his distractedness with amused tolerance, but it’s hardly admirable on his part. Considering the length of time they are married, it’s almost remarkable that she never becomes pregnant; this seems indicative of the fact that they don’t form an entirely whole family unit, because of Jonathan’s mental/emotional semi-absence. And after Jonathan has moved heaven and earth to rescue Arabella (btw, employing a young girl who has fallen hard for him in a rather insensitive way by enlisting her aid), there’s no real reunion. They have a moment, and there is the possibility of a future when they will be together again, but when he separates to rejoin Norrell there is no suggestion Arabella come with him. “she did not offer to come into the Darkness with him and he did not ask her.” His place is with Norrell and his magic, not with his wife; she must go on with her life as best she can and she seems to accept this with good grace. Hardly the stereotypical romantic moment. Must think more about what this means.
Jonathan is, of course, a far more likable character than Norrell, but he’s not a typical hero, and this is just one aspect of that.
1. Writing style. I’m often bothered by writers who copy the style of an earlier historical period, because generally they get it wrong. Usually it’s better to simply avoid expressions that scream of modernity, and stick with a slightly formal tone. Clarke amazes me because she writes in a very Austen-ian style and she rarely hits a wrong note. I went to a reading/signing she did when the book first came out, and complimented her on that; she said she reread Austen periodically throughout her reading to keep the tone fresh in her head. To me, at least, it feels natural.
2. English magic. What’s interesting is that magic is specifically English in this book; the Raven King instituted it, and, for example, when Norrell and Strange use it against the French in the Napoleonic Wars, the French have nothing corresponding to play against it. What does this say about nationalism, the English character, the rise of Empire? Is it likely/possible that as Empire takes shape, the English may discover magic in places further afield, like India, China, whatnot? Is it *possible* that the Raven King was the only one to import it?
3. Mainstream vs. marginal characters.
littlebutfierce pointed me in the direction of an interesting essay in the Whileaway LJ community, wherein cija makes some interesting points. She contends that Lady Pole is the most interesting character in the book, and criticizing Clarke for the absence of more strong female characters. Though I do find Lady Pole fascinating, I find Stephen Black equally interesting – the different is that we see things from Stephen’s point of view and we never see things from Lady Pole’s, so she remains more mysterious. I think, just because I am bothered by ahistorical women characters in historical fiction (and make no doubt, except for magic this is early 19th century England exactly) – anywhere else I expect, nay, demand them -- I’m less bothered by this, but it is interesting that Lady Pole remains the most marginal of the characters. Actually, I’m most interested in the marginal characters in the novel, generally: Lady Pole (female and disempowered, despite her theoretically privileged social position); Arabella Strange (who has a tremendous sense of humor about her situation, but plays second fiddle to English magic in her husband’s life); Stephen Black (racially other, a servant, but as the Gentleman with Thistledown Hair correctly sees, more kingly than anyone else in Britain); Childermass (othered by class), and John Segundus (somehow deeply endearing in his perseverance and his comfort with being second rank but dedicated).I have to admit Childermass was my favorite character, though all of those others came a close second. I read in an interview somewhere that Clarke intended him as a villain, but that he evolved differently in the writing, which would explain why the earlier descriptions of him as having something of a “twisted root” in his face and “greasy” long black hair are later replaced by his having ancient but respectable black clothing and long black hair without the greasy bit. Of course he does have his own agenda; but as it turns out to be benign (his loyalty to the Raven King rather than the pedantic Norrell is hardly villainy); it’s sad but not surprising that he doesn’t recognize the Raven King when he appears to him (and though the Raven King is eternally young, better looking and better dressed, there is an odd similarity in the descriptions of them so that I’d expected a stronger connection than turned out). The fondness of the rest of Norrell’s servants for him is also a late but illuminating character point; a servant who is superior in intellect to his masters and frustrated by his situation is more likely to be an unpopular sort and he’s not, which would have been a surprise at an earlier stage in the book, but isn't by the time we get there.
4. John, John and John. So besides Jonathan Strange, we’ve got John Segundus, John Childermass, and John Uskglass, the Raven King. Since Segundus and Childermass were both Northerners, we can assume that they were named after the Raven King and that the name is extremely common there. But wow, the ratio of people named John in this book is immensely high.
5. The Anti-Romanticism of the Text. Jonathan is good at falling in love; he adores Arabella before he has her and he starts to fall for Miss Greysteel when he thinks Arabella is dead. He is capable of sacrificing himself and perhaps half the world in order to save Arabella; there’s no doubt of the depth of his love. BUT, he’s a neglectful husband, perfectly willing to spend the bulk of his time with Norrell instead of Arabella; perfectly happy to go off to the wars for several years, whereas the unmarried Norrell will not. Arabella treats his distractedness with amused tolerance, but it’s hardly admirable on his part. Considering the length of time they are married, it’s almost remarkable that she never becomes pregnant; this seems indicative of the fact that they don’t form an entirely whole family unit, because of Jonathan’s mental/emotional semi-absence. And after Jonathan has moved heaven and earth to rescue Arabella (btw, employing a young girl who has fallen hard for him in a rather insensitive way by enlisting her aid), there’s no real reunion. They have a moment, and there is the possibility of a future when they will be together again, but when he separates to rejoin Norrell there is no suggestion Arabella come with him. “she did not offer to come into the Darkness with him and he did not ask her.” His place is with Norrell and his magic, not with his wife; she must go on with her life as best she can and she seems to accept this with good grace. Hardly the stereotypical romantic moment. Must think more about what this means.
Jonathan is, of course, a far more likable character than Norrell, but he’s not a typical hero, and this is just one aspect of that.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-07-28 11:03 pm (UTC)It's very normal for the time period, though, isn't it? This is set at the height of the British Navy.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-28 11:20 pm (UTC)And she's already done the Napoleonic Wars, earlier in the book.
4. John, John and John.
Date: 2005-07-29 12:06 am (UTC)I can't recall good examples offhand (I'm taking a work break; my books are forty-five minutes' drive west) but it seems to me that late eighteenth/early nineteenth century authors were much more comfortable with repeated names than contemporary authors, and that among the other things her "John"s accomplish, they add to that genuine historical tone. The fact that her multiple "John"s are not awkward -- they would be extremely so in a narrative set today -- subtly highlights the period conventions of address.
Re: 4. John, John and John.
Date: 2005-07-29 12:20 am (UTC)I do think the density of unrelated Northern Johns is *most* significant as yet another sign of the Raven King's continued presence in Northern minds. Clarke and Neil Gaiman are doing a program at Symphony Space in September, so maybe I'll get to ask then, if there's a q & a. (Assuming I don't space out on getting tickets . . . )
Re: 4. John, John and John.
Date: 2005-07-29 04:50 am (UTC)Oh, yes! Absolutely, the proliferation of "John"s no doubt named for the Raven King is part of the depth of the integration of her parallel universe's culture, and a sign of the unbanishable presence of the Raven King in their minds. For what it's worth, you have my concurrence. :-) I didn't say anything only because you had already mentioned that more important part, and I didn't have anything to add.
I do wonder why John Uskglass is "John Uskglass," though -- that is, from the author's hand, not so much within the story. Is it the sound of the words or their associations, or both? Which "John"s, of all the historical and mythical "John"s, might be most properly evoked? And do the sounds of "Uskglass" mean something in a relevant language? (I suppose I don't really care to have the author's own answer, as if she could be permitted to have the final word on her own story ~g~, but ignoring her intention and gathering cultural/intertextual possibilities appeals.)
Re: 4. John, John and John.
Date: 2005-07-29 02:35 pm (UTC)It's that LJ thing we were talking earlier about again -- instead of a full conversation, we all do random comments; I think I rather childishly want to hear some "heygreatidea!" as well as the "oh but you didn't mention this." *shrug*
Re: 4. John, John and John.
Date: 2005-07-29 03:00 pm (UTC)Yes. I should probably remove to my own LJ and make a fresh post responding to your entire post. Hmmm. Perhaps I should ask myself, "how would I write if this were fkspoilr?" ;-)
Still, in this case, it's awkward for me to say to you, "Very perceptive of you! I thought the exact same thing!" :-) Terribly condescending it sounds, no? Of the things you mention, the use of the "John"s, the anti-romanticism, the Englishness of the magic and the writing style are all things I've thought about in the book, so I do concur -- I think every one of those observations is a great idea, because, uh, I had those ideas, too. :-)
Your comments on the main versus marginal characters are largely new thoughts to me, though. I had accepted the relative status of the characters as feeling perfectly natural -- while reading this book, it's so remarkably easy to forget that it's not from that period, and that what was natural then is craftily contrived now. Since these are new, I will think on them more and come back with a response.
I will also try to come back with a thought about the amicable, extremely mutual nature of the parting between the Stranges.
Re: 4. John, John and John.
Date: 2005-07-29 04:03 pm (UTC)I responded strongly to the marginal characters on a purely readerly level, but also with my scholar's hat on, I'm always attuned to race, class, gender. In a way, even the Raven King is a marginal character because this could so easily have been written as a medieval fantasy about him, but instead he's viewed so interstitially. When Vinculus reveals that Norrell and Strange are merely elements in a spell the R.K. is casting, that was this wonderful perspective moment, you know?
Jonathan, for all his faults, is quite charming, but Norrell is a brave choice of protagonist because he's not even all that likable.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-29 01:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-29 02:00 pm (UTC)Actually I'm particularly interested in the British Landscape and the Fantastic one, as the specific Englishness of her magic intrigues me.
When I went to her reading/signing here, it was a day I was teaching and somehow had my (old, heavy) laptop with me -- I had to take a taxi home; it was just too much!
no subject
Date: 2005-07-29 02:31 pm (UTC)But I will take notes. And I'm torn... I see so many things I want to attend at the same time. Ain't it always the way? :)
Yes, that book is heavy... :) Btw, do you have the white or black cover? I bought the white just to be different since I kept seeing more copies of the black. :)
no subject
Date: 2005-07-29 02:40 pm (UTC)I bought the black one because I liked the look better; the white one is, I believe, the rarer as they didn't do it beyond the first printing. So now I'm regretting not snagging both which is just silly and collector-y and I don't want to live under a mound of collections!
no subject
Date: 2005-07-29 02:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-29 03:13 pm (UTC)Never knew there was a red cover. American only?
But then I do have the collectors' edition (and signed) hardcover of the most recent Thursday Next book. Yes, I bought the hardcover last summer with the new-style design AND sought out the collectors' edition (old-style design) hardcover. I'm still geeky sometimes.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-29 04:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-29 02:38 pm (UTC)If she does a signing then I'd offer to get the book signed for you but there'd still be the weight factor. I've been contemplating seeing if the Strand still has some of the Christmas ones with the red dustjacket to get signed, but as I already didn't get both original jackets I'm trying to ignore that collectors' madness.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-29 02:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-29 03:11 pm (UTC)Good luck with tix for her appearance with NG. The next time I see him, I have to tell him I teach Coraline now. :)
no subject
Date: 2005-07-29 04:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-08-28 11:32 am (UTC)There was an ad in yesterday's Guardian Review (full-page ad) for Susannah Clarke and Foyles -- intimate evening, reading, etc. I won't make it because it's a Tuesday night in London and my body just can't handle that sort of thing these days, alas. Sometimes I regret that we are close enough to London for it to allure me to travel there, but far away enough to make it a late night.
Anyway, the ad also displayed the new paperback of Norrell and Strange, and it appears to have a red cover.
no subject
Date: 2005-08-28 11:34 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-08-29 05:55 pm (UTC)She and Neil Gaiman are doing a program at Symphony Space later in September, which I and some friends are going to.
I'm tempted to get a paperback of JS&MN so I can leave my twice-read signed first in pristine condition. But more because I think I may try to do an article/conference paper on it and then I'd want to write in the book. ;-)
no subject
Date: 2005-08-29 09:29 pm (UTC)The thyroid replacement helped with the tiredness at first. Right now, I don't know if I need the dosage upped or if there's just something going around. I really slept a lot this weekend, and I'm feeling better today. Maybe I just pushed it too hard with the SCA event and Worldcon and I'm still recovering. I guess I'm learning that I have to slow down. I was talking with Liz lately, and she reminded me how I do tend to burn the candle at both ends. I need to do less of that.
Oh, if you're going to write in the book, I suppose you should get the paperback. :)
no subject
Date: 2005-08-02 06:54 pm (UTC)