Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell by Susanna Clarke

October 23, 2004 | 5 Comments

Summary: A review of Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell by Susanna Clarke.

This review is going to be a bit different from my usual. The reason? I don’t really like Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell and I generally only review review books I enjoy and want to recommend.

I found Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell to be very slow moving and tedious. The writing style is very good, but it’s too long and there isn’t enough character and development in relation to the amount of pages. I’ve got nothing against long books, in fact I love them if they’re engaging, it’s just this one never really hooked me. It’s too bad really beacuse I was really excited to read it. I thought the premise sounded great and even though I did expect some slow going, thought I’d be able to overcome and get into the story.

It was the lack of story development that really kept me from enjoying this one and ultimately kept me from finishing it. When I read for entertainment I need to be engaged. The plot needs to move and I need to feel for the characters. There are parts of Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell that are very entertaining and if it didn’t meander so much (halfway through I still wasn’t sure where it was going) it might have been a pretty good read.

But it does meander and it’s weighted down with too much overwrought prose. There were points when I would start to really get into it, only to have it go off on some inconsequential tangent. Some may call this detail, but it was superfluous to me. Anyway, the books shows a lot of promise, but is just too darn slow for my taste.

Then there are the footnotes. At first I enjoyed these, they reminded me of the wonderful Amulet of Samarkand and for the first few chapters I devoured them. As the book plods on though they just become distracting.

There are bound to be people who disagree with me, and I’d actually recommend this book to fans of well-written, detailed and classic Jane Austin-ish literature. As well, if you’ve got a long attention span, lots of time and want to savor a slowly told tale, you might enjoy it. But if you’re expecting an “adult Harry Potter” as it’s been billed, you’ll be in for a surprise. If this is you, you’d be better off with the aforementioned Amulet of Samarkand or it’s sequel The Golem’s Eye—which I just started and is very good—or you could just wait for the movie.

Recommended if you like: Jane Austin, Anne Rice, Jonathan Stroud

My Rating: 2.5 out of 5.

Filed under: Review

Comments

1. teli said:

I have to admit Keith, your review has me intrigued yet worried…from the commentary at Amazon.com it sounds like it would surely be an interesting read.

I love Anne Rice, however I couldn’t stand The Witching Hour which bored me to no end and that is where my concern lies…will this book become another Witching Hour for me personally.

As for Jane Austin, depends on what day it is and what mood I’m in, but I think I may just lounge in Barnes & Nobles for a couple hours and get a feel for this book before I go spending any money on it…

Thanks for the “flip side of the coin” and an interesting review.

Posted on October 23, 2004 07:09 PM | #

2. Jason Santa Maria said:

I know I talked to you a bit in Vegas about it before I started reading it, and now that I am about 250 pages into it, I couldn’t disagree with you more. I LOVE the book’s language, humor, and characters. It’s definitely not an adult Harry Potter, the tone is far different. I actually think the plod of the story really adds to the plot development and historical nature the book exudes. Sorry buddy, this one has me hooked so far.

Posted on October 23, 2004 10:38 PM | #

3. Keith said:

Jason – You know, I think there are lots of people who would agree with you. There were times when I almost got hooked also, but my problem is that at 450 pages you’re not much further along as far as the plot than you are at 250 pages.

Whether you like it or not, you’ve got to admit it’s a slow read.

Too slow for my taste. I guess I feel it could have used a liberal edit. Anyway, it’s not all bad and I think it’ll make a good movie. :)

Posted on October 24, 2004 12:24 PM | #

4. Kev said:

I thought it was great. Finally a British novel about magic that isn’t overly derivative or reliant on nauseatingly cute children to sell it.

Far from plodding and slow I thought it was luxurious and detailed. Like LOTR its one of those books that seems to swallow you whole.

I’m a fan of ‘what-if’ type novels and especially enjoy the George McDonald Fraser ‘Flashman’ series. This book reminds me favourably of that series in that its well written, has something new to say and doesn’t feel the need to rush itself.

Posted on October 28, 2004 02:09 AM | #

5. Jono said:

honestly i would give this book a 5 and i am and excrutiatingly slow reader. it took me 3 months to read this book but i enjoyed every single chapter. The way Clarke immerses you into the legend was so overwhelming for me. True it was very long winded but that to me just radiates the confidence the writer has in the style. I love well written books and often times they become very wordy because the sentence structure is more than the bland “he did this. Then he did this” (or she)
which can ruine (for me at least) the best story in the world.
Maybe it’s because i am partial to british wit. Being so slow a reader things often times bore me. But at other times like in this case it is a blessing becuase i experience the story at a pace thats closer to real time.
this was the first book in a long while that had me almost in tears because i had finished it. I loved this book so much i wanted to immediately read it again.
In closing i’d like to express that i am not saying your review is in any way wrong. I’m just giving a review in the perspective of someone who can’t spell and loved the fact that this book was a slow read.
-Jono-

Posted on May 4, 2005 09:32 AM | #