September '06 Fantasy BOTM: Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell by Susannah Clarke

[Erfael]

Discussion is now open on Susannah Clarke's Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell, the 2005 Hugo winner.

There was previously a lengthy thread discussing this book when it was new. It can be found here: http://www.sffworld.com/forums/showt...trange+norrell

Discussion-starters forthcoming, but feel free to start in on it before that happens.

[Erfael]

Questions from JJ to kick us off:

1) Did people find the characters sympathetic, particularly Strange and Norrell themselves?
One review states "I didn't particularly empathise with most of the characters - and indeed I wonder if this is why some people have had trouble with the novel" (librarything) Does anyone agree or disagree with this?

2) What did you think of the ending? Lots of people seem to have commented on the lack of closure - was this an issue?

3) Just what was the deal with the Raven King?

4) The style: "In short, it is a novel of the Victorian era perfectly composed." (Inchoatus)
Now, I haven't actually read any Victorian era novels - does this seem a fair description? (Erf edit: And did it work for you? Many have complained that they can't finish the book or didn't like it BECAUSE of the style.)

Finally,

5) '"What a tremendous work of scholarship it is! _This_ is the kind of book we mean when we say "exerting influence on the genre" or "changing the genre"' (also Inchoatus). Can anyone see JS&MN _really_ affecting the genre that much? Would this be a Good Thing?

[Yobmod]

1) Did people find the characters sympathetic, particularly Strange and Norrell themselves?
One review states "I didn't particularly empathise with most of the characters - and indeed I wonder if this is why some people have had trouble with the novel" (librarything) Does anyone agree or disagree with this?

1) I didn't particularly find them sympathetic, which in itself shouldn'yt be a problem, but i also didn't find them particularly interesting. I don't think Norrell was supposed to be sympathetic though, he was generally unpleasant in every scene i can think of, and was very one-dimensional. Apart from his desire to bring back magic decorously, he seemed to have no motivation or ambitions, especially once the focus shifted to Strange in the second half of the book. Given any hypothetical situation i think it is way too easy to predict Norrell's reaction.
Strange is the one i guess were supposed to root for, but for the majority of the book he was simply too shallow. Everything he attempts seems to work first time and with little effort, and by the he is presented with a real problem (ie his wife's death), it was too late for me to care.

Overall, i found that the inequality in the characterisation of the 2 protagonists was a disapointment. I expected both characters to be important to the plot, and to be equally interesting and sympathetic. But Norrell's unremitting selfishness was never redeemed by other aspects of his personality, and he was also disadvantaged by almost always being in the wrong (as the magical expert, I thought it felt forced that he was almost always completely wrong when disagreeing with Strange the novice).

2) What did you think of the ending? Lots of people seem to have commented on the lack of closure - was this an issue?

The ending was also disapointing, and somewhat dishonest IMO. I turns out this is only the first book of a trilogy, so i would have never of read it, and i doubt it would have gotten as much mainstream aclaim, except this information was nowhere to be found when i bought it.
This explains the poor ending, as it wasn't really an ending at all. The whole book is basically just a prologue. Having the raven king appear right near the end, and being told that the whole plot had been orchestrated by him was a weak piece of story telling - if Eddings did something like that, everyone would have criticised it. And as the Raven King hadn't made any earlier appearance, it is almost impossible to care about his motives.
Although i'm not particularly enamoured of the protagonists, i hpoe the whole 'they were just the Raven King's spell' thing is a metaphor, otherwise it makes the whole book pretty pointless. I suspect JS and Norrell will be in the next books as minor characters?

3) Just what was the deal with the Raven King?

3) As Clarke never bothered to tell us much about him, i think it's pointless to speculate - he is just a cipher and plot device at the moment.

4) The style: "In short, it is a novel of the Victorian era perfectly composed." (Inchoatus)
Now, I haven't actually read any Victorian era novels - does this seem a fair description? (Erf edit: And did it work for you? Many have complained that they can't finish the book or didn't like it BECAUSE of the style.)

4) Finally, i can say something positive The writing style was the best part of the book in my opinion. I've read a little Austen, and Clarke manages to evoke the language very well. Nb Austen is a Georgian/Regency era writer, and JS&MN is set in Georgian times - I wonder how Inchoatus decided it was perfectly Vicotiran? Almost like they are simply repeating the hype they've heard.
I've read some complaints about the olde english spelling, but after the first few instances i stopped noticing them. She also manages to maintain the style throughout, with no anachronisms or 21st century dialogue (that i noticed). The only problem here was the desperate need of an editor to simply cut a third of it out. The victorian style may be wordier than nowadays, but i find that they generally knew when a detailed description or (minor) character history is needed, and when it is extraneous. Clarke nor her Editor seemed to be able to grasp this.

5) '"What a tremendous work of scholarship it is! _This_ is the kind of book we mean when we say "exerting influence on the genre" or "changing the genre"' (also Inchoatus). Can anyone see JS&MN _really_ affecting the genre that much? Would this be a Good Thing?

[/QUOTE]

I don't really understand how it a work of scholarship
As to wether it will change the genre, i doubt it very much. There hasn't been an avalanche of imitators as far as i have seen. There are a few more books around set in Elizabethan to Victorian ages, but this trend predates JS & MN, as is more symptom of fantasy maturing.
Eg: Jo Walton's WFA winner Tooth and Claw was published before JS&MN (and is cleverer, funnier, shorter less well written, but better than JS&MN) as were most of the books in this Victorian recomendations thread


My final opinion was that it was an ok book, which i gave 7 /10. The major problems were in the plotting and the lack of editing, both of which i would expect to improve in her next book, so i'll read the series if it is ever finished. I heard that this one took 10 years to write, so i'm not holding my breath.

[Eventine]

I made a post on this previously that got lost in the crash, I'll attempt to rewrite it here. Yobmod also raised a question


Did people find the characters sympathetic, particularly Strange and Norrell themselves?
Of course not, and I'm sure we weren't supposed to. Norrell was seemed to me to inspired by Scrooge, and Strange's singlemindedness contributed to make two unsympathetic characters. I'm not one to need a square-jawed, likeable, do-gooding protagonist in my story, and these two characters made the novel more interesting for their foibles - frustrating at times as well though. I don't think we were meant to "root" for Strange either though Yobmod (that term has a particularly different meaning in Australia )

What did you think of the ending? Lots of people seem to have commented on the lack of closure - was this an issue?
I felt there was enough closure, I don't expect everything to be tied up with a lovely bow at the end of a novel. I liked the idea of Strange heading off, and could live without reading another book. The thing that really interested me was wwhat happened to Vinculus.

Just what was the deal with the Raven King?
Considering I spent most of the book with the mistaken notion that the man with thistledown hair was the Raven King, I'm not so sure I'm so well equipped to answer this question, so I'll cop out and just agree with Yobmod - plot device.

The style: "In short, it is a novel of the Victorian era perfectly composed."
As I mentioned in the original thread on this subject, I was really worried about the style coming into this novel - I loathed reading novels like Jane Eyre when in school and figured this would be more of the same. Instead, I found myself a fan of the style, and it was only some of the strange spellings that jarred with me.

Can anyone see JS&MN _really_ affecting the genre that much? Would this be a Good Thing?
I can see it changing what will be published within the gnre - anything that has the sales of this book is surely going to have publishers trying to cash in on its popularity. Which is probably why we've seen Naomi Novik push out three books in rapid succession (even though Novik doesn't get anywhere near pulling off the style of writing as Clarke doews) and we'll no doubt see a few more novels of this style published before the Next Big Thing comes along - anyone feel like buying my con artist novel?

Just looking back through old threads, I actually voted this as my second favourite book of 2005 behind Anansi Boys and ahead of The Dark Tower. In retrospect, I'd now probably put it behind The Dark Tower (I'd just finished it and was slightly bitter at the ending) - it hasn't stuck with me as well as either of those books.

[Yobmod]

I made a post on this previously that got lost in the crash, I'll attempt to rewrite it here. Yobmod also raised a question

Damn, I hate rewriting posts.

(I know the adult meaning of 'to root' (not 'to root for'), but it always reminds me of pigs rooting around after, erm, roots

-------------------------------

Where are all the people that voted for this? (against the advice of wiser heads ).

Did anyone think that Clarke was trying to say anything about the real world at any time? The subplot with Stephen Black could have been trying to make a point about race, but it never did IMO, unless "were all the same inside" counts as a message for anyone over 5 years old.

Or was the fact that Strange and the Raven King were so much more profficient at magic than Norrell, in spite of all his studying and hard work, saying that there is no point in competing in life against those with natural aptitude (Strange) or a privileged upbringing (Raven King).?

Or is it just a story, with nothing to say?

Edit: Maybe the six (!) people that voted for this all posted just before the crash? So we've lost their insightful comments forever

[rabbers]

I'm new to this group

1) Did people find the characters sympathetic, particularly Strange and Norrell themselves?

Yes I think so. Strange and Norell, although very different personalities had a thread of commonaltiy which ran through most of the novell, mutual respect. and of course magic !!

2) What did you think of the ending? Lots of people seem to have commented on the lack of closure - was this an issue?

As I worked toward the end of this book, with Strange working his ever "stranger" and more powerful magic, I did start to wonder how it was going to wrap itself up. As the number of pages left started to dwindle it became obvious that it wasn't going to resolve. I was left feeling that a sequel must be in the offing. Who / what is the raven king ? What happens to MR strange ? and indeed Mr Norrell. Although I don't require a "they all lived happily ever after" ending I do like to get beneath some of the mysteries, and we are certainly tantalized by a few in this book. To answer the question though - no not an issue (for me). I have avidly consumed lots of fantasy novels over the last 15 years, and I have to say I think this one of the better ones - not necesarily because it is any better or written any better - but because it was refreshingly different.

3) Just what was the deal with the Raven King?

I'd love to know !!

4) The style: "In short, it is a novel of the Victorian era perfectly composed." (Inchoatus)

Well it is certainly very well written IMO. Perfect is always a hard score to give !! But I loved the style and it did give me a feeling of reading something like "The Mayor of Casterbridge" from my school days.

5) '"What a tremendous work of scholarship it is! _This_ is the kind of book we mean when we say "exerting influence on the genre" or "changing the genre"' (also Inchoatus). Can anyone see JS&MN _really_ affecting the genre that much? Would this be a Good Thing?

I can't see that this will bring any sort of sea change to the genre only broaden its horizons. Lets face it fantasy is a broad genre and can be set in any sort of time or place you can IMAGINE. I agree it is a tremendous work - I would like to see more of JS&MN in the future...

[JJ_99uk]

1) Did people find the characters sympathetic, particularly Strange and Norrell themselves?
One review states "I didn't particularly empathise with most of the characters - and indeed I wonder if this is why some people have had trouble with the novel" (librarything) Does anyone agree or disagree with this?

I think I agree with Yobmod on this one - I got the feeling we were supposed to root for Strange, and although in the early parts of the book he seemed tolerable, as the book progressed he just got more and more irritating. I still liked the book, but I found it quite difficult to care whether or not he would escape from the curse, for example.

2) What did you think of the ending? Lots of people seem to have commented on the lack of closure - was this an issue?

I was quite supprised by the ending. I was expecting something a bit more definate to happen to Strange and Norrell - it struck me that the character who most went through a complete "story" was Steven Black. It didn't stop me from liking the book, though.

3) Just what was the deal with the Raven King?

The reason I asked this was I thought it was a bit odd that the Raven King appeared once and once only in the book and didn't do much. I was expecting either a grand finale in which he'd play a big part, or for him to remain hidden throughout. was kind of hoping someone might have noticed some subtlety I missed! I got the impression the gentleman with the thistledown hair was represented as usurping the Raven King's power, and hence the restoration of English Magic was the return of the rightful king to his throne, but I might be trying to impose too much of a clear cut reading on things.

4) The style: "In short, it is a novel of the Victorian era perfectly composed." (Inchoatus)
Now, I haven't actually read any Victorian era novels - does this seem a fair description? (Erf edit: And did it work for you? Many have complained that they can't finish the book or didn't like it BECAUSE of the style.)

I really liked the style. It definately made a big difference from the standard slightly earnest tone prefered by most fantasy authors. But the spellings did throw me each time I encountered them, which is odd, because I can't actually spell very well, so I wouldn't have thought I would have noticed them...

Finally,

5) '"What a tremendous work of scholarship it is! _This_ is the kind of book we mean when we say "exerting influence on the genre" or "changing the genre"' (also Inchoatus). Can anyone see JS&MN _really_ affecting the genre that much? Would this be a Good Thing?

[/QUOTE]

I'd like to see more books like JS&MN, and Evantine's right to point to Novik as (maybe!) an imitator. But what I'd really like is not necessarily more Victorian-style (or Georgian-style!) but just a widening in general. And that's something I think we're starting to see

Did anyone think that Clarke was trying to say anything about the real world at any time? The subplot with Stephen Black could have been trying to make a point about race, but it never did IMO, unless "were all the same inside" counts as a message for anyone over 5 years old.

I think Steven Black was more to try and say that there are many different types of slavery? Hence Pole's wife bound by magic (and marriage?), and so on... or maybe.

Or was the fact that Strange and the Raven King were so much more profficient at magic than Norrell, in spite of all his studying and hard work, saying that there is no point in competing in life against those with natural aptitude (Strange) or a privileged upbringing (Raven King).?

Or that book learning isn't equivalent to practice? Or that practice is better than theory? But then John Segundas (sp?) came across as quite a nice chap, certainly better than S&N. But all the relationships between the magicians were odd - I never quite understood what Childemass was there for.

Is there definately going to be a sequal to this book? Or are those just rumours? I don't really think the book needs a sequal, certainly not one featuring the same characters. It would be cool to see a sequal, say, 100 years later, but this wouldn't really fit the writing style, I suppose...

JJ

[Yobmod]

I'm new to this group

welcome!

Is there definately going to be a sequal to this book? Or are those just rumours? I don't really think the book needs a sequal, certainly not one featuring the same characters. It would be cool to see a sequal, say, 100 years later, but this wouldn't really fit the writing style, I suppose...

I read somewhere online that the sequels are merely rumours. But the JS & MN website has a big interview with Clarke where she says:

The next book will be set in the same world and will probably start a few years after Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell finishes. I feel very much at home in the early nineteenth century and am not inclined to leave it. I doubt that the new book will be a sequel in the strictest sense. There are new characters to be introduced, though probably some old friends will appear too. I’d like to move down the social scale a bit. Strange and Norrell were both rich, with pots of money and big estates. Some of the characters in the second book have to struggle a bit harder to keep body and soul together. I expect there’ll be more about John Uskglass, the Raven King, and about how magic develops in England.

I assume she means the next novel, and not The Ladies of Grace Adieu collection that is out next month. At least some of the stories are set in the S&N world. Has anyone seen an advanced copy of this? I'm suprised there hasn't bben lots of reviews already.

[Eventine]

Where are all the people that voted for this? (against the advice of wiser heads ).

Like Seth Cohen , they've also taken 3 months to read the first third of the book.

Did anyone think that Clarke was trying to say anything about the real world at any time? The subplot with Stephen Black could have been trying to make a point about race, but it never did IMO, unless "were all the same inside" counts as a message for anyone over 5 years old.

Or was the fact that Strange and the Raven King were so much more profficient at magic than Norrell, in spite of all his studying and hard work, saying that there is no point in competing in life against those with natural aptitude (Strange) or a privileged upbringing (Raven King).?

Or is it just a story, with nothing to say?

I'm pretty sure it was just a story, but without the author around to comment I suppose it's like any story - you can take what you want out of it.

[Katya]

I'm pretty sure that I didn't vote for this book, as I found it too much like reading the bible... you just have to keep reading even if you aren't enjoying it. I spent the first half of the book plugging away just to have it done. I picked it up for a different book club, and was probably the only person there that didn't like it.

1) Did people find the characters sympathetic, particularly Strange and Norrell themselves?
One review states "I didn't particularly empathise with most of the characters - and indeed I wonder if this is why some people have had trouble with the novel" (librarything) Does anyone agree or disagree with this?

I really hated the footnotes... that's why I had issues with this book. Especially the footnotes that carried on the next page when I wasn't done reading the current page. I guess I would have liked the backstory to be built into the story. I know that this was her device, and the way she did it, but it didn't jive with me.

I liked Strange, after the book started to focus on him. I found him interesting and multi-faceted. I wasn't all that interested in Norrell, as I found him (like someone else said) to be too much like Scrooge.

2) What did you think of the ending? Lots of people seem to have commented on the lack of closure - was this an issue?

I didn't mind the end of this book. I didn't feel like there wasn't enough closure.

3) Just what was the deal with the Raven King?

Like I said before, the whole footnote thing irritated me too much. In fact, I stopped reading them (I would skim them, but not really read them), so I missed some of the Raven King stuff. I did like the scene with the thistle down hair guy, when he led the king out into the forest.

4) The style: "In short, it is a novel of the Victorian era perfectly composed." (Inchoatus)
Now, I haven't actually read any Victorian era novels - does this seem a fair description? (Erf edit: And did it work for you? Many have complained that they can't finish the book or didn't like it BECAUSE of the style.)

The style bothered me. I've never read any "Victorian" novels, save Dracula, which I found to be in a different style then JS&MN.

Finally,

5) '"What a tremendous work of scholarship it is! _This_ is the kind of book we mean when we say "exerting influence on the genre" or "changing the genre"' (also Inchoatus). Can anyone see JS&MN _really_ affecting the genre that much? Would this be a Good Thing?

Egads. It would not be a Good Thing (IMO) to have more novels like this. Her actual normal writing style wasn't that bad, but if we all have to start reading more footnotes, I'm going to gouge out my eyes.

[AJ_]

First off, I have to say I enjoyed reading this book. It took me awhile to read it, but I was definitley in the mood for a book that I could immerse myself in.

1) Did people find the characters sympathetic, particularly Strange and Norrell themselves?
One review states "I didn't particularly empathise with most of the characters - and indeed I wonder if this is why some people have had trouble with the novel" (librarything) Does anyone agree or disagree with this?

I sympathized with Strange's wife the most. I felt like I was supposed to symphathize with Strange more, but I didn't really care for him. Norrell was very dry for me until the scene where Strange breaks off his relationship with him. It seemed like we got to see more into Norrell's heart and feelings and so I saw him in a warmer light after that.

2) What did you think of the ending? Lots of people seem to have commented on the lack of closure - was this an issue?

The ending worked fine for me. I could completely picture the two of them being in the dark curse forever but still being content because they could work magic. What was disappointing was Strange's wife. I was hoping for some more warmth of feeling between the two.

3) Just what was the deal with the Raven King?

The deal with the Raven King...a mysterious figure that we got to wonder about. Something slightly ominous or hopeful, depending on your view.

4) The style: "In short, it is a novel of the Victorian era perfectly composed." (Inchoatus)
Now, I haven't actually read any Victorian era novels - does this seem a fair description? (Erf edit: And did it work for you? Many have complained that they can't finish the book or didn't like it BECAUSE of the style.)

I loved the writing style. I like to read English classics now and again, so I felt completely at home with it.

5) '"What a tremendous work of scholarship it is! _This_ is the kind of book we mean when we say "exerting influence on the genre" or "changing the genre"' (also Inchoatus). Can anyone see JS&MN _really_ affecting the genre that much? Would this be a Good Thing?

Though I liked the book, I can't see it affecting the genre. I would rate it good but not great. It won't make my top ten list of fantasy books, but I would read future books by Susanna Clarke.

[Teresa Edgerton]

I thought it was a wonderful book. It took me longer to read than most books (even of a similar length) but every time I looked at how many pages I had left to read, it was like scrutinizing the remaining contents of a box of chocolates and realizing that it would be a while yet before I ran out.

I think it was rather brave of Ms. Clarke to go with a main character who was not particularly sympathetic -- neither was he the sort of dashing, handsome rogue one so easily forgives for not behaving quite as he ought. He was fussy and vain, and plain and elderly, and I found him to be a realistic enough character study to be interesting. Strange, when he finally arrived, was much closer to being a sympathetic character -- he had his moments, and then there were times when I wasn't so pleased with him. But I liked that he stayed in character, and didn't behave or misbehave solely for the sake of advancing the plot. Mrs. Strange I liked very much, and would have enjoyed reading more about her.

The ending didn't fully satisfy me. There were loose ends I would have liked to see tied up. But the lack of closure in a few places wasn't enough to spoil what was otherwise a very good reading experience.

The Raven King -- I can't decide whether it would have been better to know more about him or not. I always do want to know the answers to any intriguing questions a book might leave open, but I don't know, maybe he worked better as something mysterious, unknowable. Sometimes revelations can be something of a let-down. (For some reason I kept thinking that Childermas was going to turn out to be the Raven King in disguise. Some times I am not so clever as I think I am.)

The style I thought was perfect, it was spot-on for the period. I've read a lot of books that tried to emulate a 19th century style and never came close at all. I do read a fair number of 19th century novels, so I think I'm sensitive to things that might go right over the head of readers who aren't so familiar with the literary style and conventions of the period.

And as such -- although for other reasons, too -- I would agree that it was a tremendous work of scholarship. With less research, she could have faked something up that would have passed with most readers, but she didn't go that route, and I really admire her for that. Neither in style nor plot nor characters did she compromise her vision in order to appeal to contemporary tastes. (Instead she appealed to my tastes, which I naturally think quite brave and splendid of her.)

I wish there could be a lot more books written in the same vein, but I suspect there will merely be a certain number of half-hearted imitations by people who don't know and don't want to know the period as well as Ms. Clarke does.

[s271]

Questions from JJ to kick us off:
1) Did people find the characters sympathetic, particularly Strange and Norrell themselves?
One review states "I didn't particularly empathise with most of the characters - and indeed I wonder if this is why some people have had trouble with the novel" (librarything) Does anyone agree or disagree with this?

Yes! I empathise with Norell a lot! It's very familiar feeling: From one hand desire to keep hard-earned understanding of some (relativly) difficalt concepts and some painfully constructed solutions to himself, and form the gripping hand desire to contribute to community and to gain respect by giving those solutions away.
Also I hate than people don't return my books.

2) What did you think of the ending? Lots of people seem to have commented on the lack of closure - was this an issue?

I think there is a closure - not external situational closure, but personal devlopment of protagonists. They understood who they are.

3) Just what was the deal with the Raven King?

Uh-huh..

4) The style: "In short, it is a novel of the Victorian era perfectly composed."

If you find it hard try Le Morte d'Artur

5) '"What a tremendous work of scholarship it is! _This_ is the kind of book we mean when we say "exerting influence on the genre" or "changing the genre"' (also Inchoatus). Can anyone see JS&MN _really_ affecting the genre that much? Would this be a Good Thing?

Genre already there. Umberto Eco, Naomi Novik, alt history etc.

[starry-eyed]

Although this book was so huge my friends were conviced it was actually a dictionary, I didn't have much trouble getting through the novel. (Not as much as I expected to, anyway.) I did start skimming/skipping their footnotes at some point, though, and that helped enormously. Otherwise I kept feeling disjointed by the process of skipping over to a footnote and then back to the text.

Initally Norell's character was such a caricature who could identify with him? Later as the plot allows him to develp into something more 3d- I mean he get to experience emotions beyond pride, jealousy and fear- he gets much more intersting. Strange's character I thought would initally be more empathetic, but I found it was the passages in which he interacted with his wife that allowed me to understand and relate to him. I agree with some of the other responces- Mrs. Strange was by far the most empathetic of the characters.

In fact, that's why the ending worked for me. It provided a sense of closure for Mrs. Strange in terms of her relationship with her husband. It also revealed the extent of the obsession of these men with magic, that they were ok to be forever under a dark cloud and just studying magic in their own universe (presumably to find a way back out). Oddly I thought it was a happy ending. I hadn't realized Clarke intended to write more to this series, though.
I guess we'll see if thats really how it ends for Strange and Norell.

[beenorthern]

I read *Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell* back in May. At first I couldn't get into it and I began to think it would return to the library unread, but then I skipped ahead and sampled some pages further in -- and it grabbed me. It's big, it's thick, and it took several days, but it was worth reading. But to answer the discussion points:

(1) I didn't find the title character particularly sympathetic or likeable, but they were recognizable types. I liked some of the minor characters -- Steven Black, Mrs. Strange, Childermass and I was interested in finding out what happened to them ...

(2) I was quite happy with the ending ... Some of the early posters assure me that there is more to come, but this books stands alone perfectly well as far as I'm concerned.

(3) Several posters have complained that there is no build-up for the sudden appearance of the Raven King ... I must disagree. I read all the footnotes as I went along and there were many anecdotes about the Raven King. The reader was informed that John Uskglass might not be dead -- might still be wandering the fairylands and might come into the mundane land. This novel has so many wondertale components that I expected them to work in the usual way ... Everything mentioned in the stories is there for a reason -- if Grandfer tells you a story about dogs with eyes as big as saucers, one can be sure that one will meet said dogs before the story ends!

(4) Clarke's writing style has been called Victorian; Novik has been dubbed an imitator of Clarke's style. Victorian -- well mostly -- but there is no imitation here. In Victorian times, as today, there were many authors writing different stories in different styles for different audiences.

Suzanna Clarke has been very perceptively compared to Trollope, since she's is writing a novel of character, society and manners. BUT there is a hefty infusion of Andrew Lang (*Blue Fairy Book*, *Crimson Fairy Book* etc.) If one has read wondertales, it's perfectly obvious that Mr. Norrell has made a bargain with a Fairy Prince (the often invisible, fair gentlemen) and he has failed to specify the terms carefully enough. The Fair Folk have no human feelings -- they will hold to the exact wording of the agreement, regardless of the actual intent, and twist it to their advantage ... Steven Black is the archetypical Lost Prince ... I was relieved to find that Mrs. Strange was not Bluebeard's Wife ...

Naomi Novik, on the other hand, is writing adventure yarns in the style of Captain Marryat and H. Rider Haggard, with a fantasy element added in a very matter-of-fact way.

(5) If this novel changes the fantasy genre in any way, it will be to encourage authors to use an even greater variety of styles and settings than they already do -- they will be better able to persuade their agents that there is an audience for all types of fantasy!