chelseagirl (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
chelseagirl) wrote2006-05-31 09:36 am
chelseagirl) wrote2006-05-31 09:36 am
Entry tags:
Nineteenth Century Fantasies
I have a particular interest in fantasies (and science fiction) set in the nineteenth century, and one of the things I've noticed lately is that much of what I'm coming across now is set in the Napoleonic Wars/Regency era rather than in the High Victorian period. And I'm curious about that.
What I've been reading (some recently, some within the past year or so):
His Majesty's Dragon, by Naomi Novik
Sorcery and Cecelia by Caroline Stevermer and Patricia Wrede
Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell by Susanna Clarke
Tooth and Claw by Jo Walton
Freedom and Necessity by Emma Bull and Steven Brust
Of these, Tooth & Claw and Freedom & Necessity are Victorian, the others are pre-Victorian. (I get very grumbly when people refer to Napoleonic Wars/Regency stuff as "Eighteenth" century; in a fit of name-dropping I might say that when my friend G. and I and the not-yet-a-published-author-of-historical-mysteries David Liss were all in an Austen seminar together we used to playfully contest whether Austen was part of his -- eighteenth century -- territory or our nineteenth century.)
Freedom and Necessity is very much grounded in its historical era. Political philosophy and the Chartist movement are key to the plot. In fact, when we read it in book group, we felt that the elements of the fantastic were minimal enough that we couldn't see why it had been marketed as a fantasy rather than a historical -- yes there was that group of influential types trying to use magic to control the course of history, but it was somewhat questonable how effective their magic actually was and certainly historically there have been similar groups. And I've made my complaints about out-of-period character behavior before, mostly regarding sex and the eager discussion thereof.
Tooth and Claw was a book I kept hesitating to pick up, because the plot summary "it's a Victorian novel only everyone's a dragon" sounded potentially way too precious. It's not. It's like a letter-perfect Trollope pastiche where everyone is . . . a dragon. Trollope plus Darwin, really. It works marvellously. I was not surprised that the academic Trollope-L was cited in her acknowledgments.
But the reason I say the others are more prevalent is because of the vast popularity of the Clarke book, and the fact that the Novik and the Stevermer and Wrede are both the first book in series. In response to an early comment I'd made,![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
nessreader suggested the popularity of Georgette Heyer might have something to do with it. I'm relatively Heyer-ignorant, but very familiar with the books of Jane Austen and Patrick O'Brian. My guess is that nessreader is right that Stevermer and Wrede, though they cite Heyer and Austen both, might be particularly influenced by Heyer. With Clarke, it's Austen and Dickens, while Novik is most heavily influenced by O'Brian.
Sorcery and Cecelia was really enjoyable. Maybe because it's a YA, and maybe because of the letter-game aspect, I felt like there were aspects of its universe that could have been developed in a lot more depth, but otoh, it did have a nice dropped-into-the-midst-of-things feel. I love the fact that it started out as a letter game, and as it was originally published in 1988, it's certainly not jumping on the Jonathan Strange bandwagon. When nessreader said Heyer rather than Austen that made a lot of sense to me because it doesn't have a solid Austen feel to me, more the trappings and though the characters were enjoyably young women of their time, there was perhaps more of the feel of someone writing about a period than in it. I've only read one Heyer, when I was doing a grad school project on the Silver Fork novels (the popular society-romance fiction of the Regency and early Victorian era) and wanted to compare a 20th century "Regency romance").
I've rambled on here about how much I love Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell. It may be significant that of this batch of fantasists, set in 19th century Britain, that Clarke is the only actual English person. Correction, Clarke and Walton are the only actual British people. *blush* There's a reason this book was a massive cross-over success -- and on the other hand there's a reason some people are still meaning to get back and finish it. It's note-perfect, it's created a detailed alternate history while maintaining a spot-on voice and never faltering in its immersion in period. It's also as vast and sometimes as slow-moving as a true Victorian novel, which is a big part of my love for it. I hope desperately that the next one is not ten years in the making, and that a collection of her short stories comes out in the meantime.
OTOH, Dickens is as big an influence as Austen, so why the time period? The Napoleonic Wars themselves place a significant role in the story, so there's that. The Austenian voice may feel more natural for a woman writer -- I'm here thinking of what Woolf said in A Room of One's Own about Austen's perfect female sentences. Or perhaps the rise of technology during this time period and how during the time during which Clarke is writing the Industrial Revolution is already underway but the railroads haven't yet come in and etc etc.
Naomi Novik is definitely a Patrick O'Brian fan; again, the Napoleonic Wars are crucial to her plot. I've only read the first one so far and simply have less to say about it, except that it was a pleasant read and by making her viewpoint character a proper Naval captain suddenly thrust into the very atypical atmosphere of the dragon corps, she did a good job in incorporating a period perspective while still letting things get productively alternative in places.
Anyway, just some roughed-out ideas; would love to hear what other people think about these, and please send friends along if you think they'd be interested in this topic.
What I've been reading (some recently, some within the past year or so):
His Majesty's Dragon, by Naomi Novik
Sorcery and Cecelia by Caroline Stevermer and Patricia Wrede
Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell by Susanna Clarke
Tooth and Claw by Jo Walton
Freedom and Necessity by Emma Bull and Steven Brust
Of these, Tooth & Claw and Freedom & Necessity are Victorian, the others are pre-Victorian. (I get very grumbly when people refer to Napoleonic Wars/Regency stuff as "Eighteenth" century; in a fit of name-dropping I might say that when my friend G. and I and the not-yet-a-published-author-of-historical-mysteries David Liss were all in an Austen seminar together we used to playfully contest whether Austen was part of his -- eighteenth century -- territory or our nineteenth century.)
Freedom and Necessity is very much grounded in its historical era. Political philosophy and the Chartist movement are key to the plot. In fact, when we read it in book group, we felt that the elements of the fantastic were minimal enough that we couldn't see why it had been marketed as a fantasy rather than a historical -- yes there was that group of influential types trying to use magic to control the course of history, but it was somewhat questonable how effective their magic actually was and certainly historically there have been similar groups. And I've made my complaints about out-of-period character behavior before, mostly regarding sex and the eager discussion thereof.
Tooth and Claw was a book I kept hesitating to pick up, because the plot summary "it's a Victorian novel only everyone's a dragon" sounded potentially way too precious. It's not. It's like a letter-perfect Trollope pastiche where everyone is . . . a dragon. Trollope plus Darwin, really. It works marvellously. I was not surprised that the academic Trollope-L was cited in her acknowledgments.
But the reason I say the others are more prevalent is because of the vast popularity of the Clarke book, and the fact that the Novik and the Stevermer and Wrede are both the first book in series. In response to an early comment I'd made,
nessreader suggested the popularity of Georgette Heyer might have something to do with it. I'm relatively Heyer-ignorant, but very familiar with the books of Jane Austen and Patrick O'Brian. My guess is that nessreader is right that Stevermer and Wrede, though they cite Heyer and Austen both, might be particularly influenced by Heyer. With Clarke, it's Austen and Dickens, while Novik is most heavily influenced by O'Brian.Sorcery and Cecelia was really enjoyable. Maybe because it's a YA, and maybe because of the letter-game aspect, I felt like there were aspects of its universe that could have been developed in a lot more depth, but otoh, it did have a nice dropped-into-the-midst-of-things feel. I love the fact that it started out as a letter game, and as it was originally published in 1988, it's certainly not jumping on the Jonathan Strange bandwagon. When nessreader said Heyer rather than Austen that made a lot of sense to me because it doesn't have a solid Austen feel to me, more the trappings and though the characters were enjoyably young women of their time, there was perhaps more of the feel of someone writing about a period than in it. I've only read one Heyer, when I was doing a grad school project on the Silver Fork novels (the popular society-romance fiction of the Regency and early Victorian era) and wanted to compare a 20th century "Regency romance").
I've rambled on here about how much I love Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell. It may be significant that of this batch of fantasists, set in 19th century Britain, that Clarke is the only actual English person. Correction, Clarke and Walton are the only actual British people. *blush* There's a reason this book was a massive cross-over success -- and on the other hand there's a reason some people are still meaning to get back and finish it. It's note-perfect, it's created a detailed alternate history while maintaining a spot-on voice and never faltering in its immersion in period. It's also as vast and sometimes as slow-moving as a true Victorian novel, which is a big part of my love for it. I hope desperately that the next one is not ten years in the making, and that a collection of her short stories comes out in the meantime.
OTOH, Dickens is as big an influence as Austen, so why the time period? The Napoleonic Wars themselves place a significant role in the story, so there's that. The Austenian voice may feel more natural for a woman writer -- I'm here thinking of what Woolf said in A Room of One's Own about Austen's perfect female sentences. Or perhaps the rise of technology during this time period and how during the time during which Clarke is writing the Industrial Revolution is already underway but the railroads haven't yet come in and etc etc.
Naomi Novik is definitely a Patrick O'Brian fan; again, the Napoleonic Wars are crucial to her plot. I've only read the first one so far and simply have less to say about it, except that it was a pleasant read and by making her viewpoint character a proper Naval captain suddenly thrust into the very atypical atmosphere of the dragon corps, she did a good job in incorporating a period perspective while still letting things get productively alternative in places.
Anyway, just some roughed-out ideas; would love to hear what other people think about these, and please send friends along if you think they'd be interested in this topic.