neither an essay nor a review

[cimorene]

hollsk found at superdickery.com:  wtf?  (my initial response looked like this:

[17:05] cimness: ...
[17:05] cimness: ...
[17:05] cimness: ...
[17:05] cimness: ...
[17:05] cimness: i...
[17:05] cimness: what?
[17:05] ghetto hobbit: hahahahahah)

over the last two days i finally read jonathan strange & mr norrell.  i told isilya that i would post about my reaction.  possibly i will post again about it later, because most of today has been consumed with pain which i tried to distract myself from with the introduction to the sagas of the icelanders.  however, before i fell asleep last night

i found it riveting.  i adored the voice (although i could have enjoyed more period flavour.  it wasn't really quite austenian).  i didn't object to the multiple points of view at all.

i find its particular position with regards to homosociality really fascinating.  i might have just been thinking that because isilya was talking about it the other day, possibly, but then it was really kind of unavoidable by the end of this book.  and it was one of the most clearly homosocial as opposed to homosexual ones i've seen, i think. 

i wanted more about the gentleman with thistledown hair--wanted him woven into the plot more, the historical part perhaps--some of the part that didn't have explicitly and directly to do with him.  and i wanted either more of john uskglass or less of him--one appearance in person in that many pages seemed a bit odd, although i guess you could possibly count it as two, with the giant raven's eye in the library windows.  there were a couple of tiny things, little threads, which are the kinds of things you generally find in the first few novels of any excellent writer. 

Comments

[isilya]

and it was one of the most clearly homosocial as opposed to homosexual ones i've seen, i think. 

Yes! With Jonathan/Mr Norrell living happily ever after in their travelling house, and the wife and the girlfriend finding solace in each other, and Stephen and the Fairy Prince.

I enjoyed the book (mostly I was in complete awe of the world she had created, to such depth!) but I do get impatient with stories where there is neither narrative nor any sympathetic characters. The only plot threat I found compelling was the abduction and subsequent rescue of the wife. Parts of the book startled me with their brilliance: the talking statues, the spell that would not allow victims to talk of their enchantment, the various enchantments used against the French. What an amazing brain.

I think that her world-building is spectacular, but that her story-telling is sub-par. The novel felt deeply self-indulgent, meticulous. I admire it in a way that I admire model ships and ornate doll houses -- I think they are beautiful and interesting and am staggered by the precision and sheer *work*, effort of years, that has been lavished on them. But I feel like they belong in glass cases in museums.

[cimness.livejournal.com]

well, the narrator didn't get very close to any of the pov characters, but i felt stephen, jonathan and childermass were all more or less sympathetic. in fact, the pacing of the storytelling was maybe odd because of how much backstory and how early the book started, and how it then sort of contracted towards the end when strange travelled to the continent. she's not a very powerful lyrical or dramatic story-teller, maybe, but i liked her narrative style a lot, and enjoyed just strolling along through it.