So about a year ago, I was sitting in a doctor’s office and thumbing through a magazine (possibly Time or Newsweek) when I came across an article about this book called “Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell”. It was a very positive review that even went so far as to call it “Harry Potter for adults”. The review interested me, so I sought out the book. And a few months after picking it up, I finally got around to reading it. So now that I’ve completed the book, what do I think of it? Meh, it could have been better.
The story focuses on two magicians in an alternate Victorian era England. One is Mr. Norrell (who promptly becomes one of the books duller aspects after his introduction), a stingy prideful old man. The other is Jonathan Strange (who provides most of the book’s entertaining segments), a younger and somewhat arrogant gentleman. They have completely different views on magic and how it should be used, but both are working toward the restoration of magic in England.
I was really bored with this book (and almost gave it up a few times during the course of my reading). Sure there were entertaining parts, but they kept getting interrupted by the boring segments. And I definitely didn’t see any reasoning for it to be called “Harry Potter for adults”. Yes, both books feature British magicians, but that’s where the similarities ended. The Harry Potter books provide the reader with a wonderfully rich and detailed world that is both whimsical and treacherous. As a reader I feel drawn in and compelled to read and suck up every last literary morsel until the book is done. With Strange & Norrell, I felt none of this. The world of Strange and Norrell is much like that of a Greek drama. All talk and (virtually) no action. So much of Clarke’s tale is spent with people talking to one another about what’s happening or performing boring tasks in their dull world. Each time I began a chapter that featured Mr. Norrell, I would have to will myself to continue, just so that I could get to the next chapter that would hopefully feature Strange.
After reading this book and feeling the way I felt, I wondered why it was given such critical praise. So I searched around for a few reviews to see what “the experts” thought about it.
Here’s what Edward Nowatka wrote for USAToday (9/15/2004):
It is less a fantasy novel than a work of alternate history. As such, it is more cerebral than the Harry Potter novels and remains an adult pleasure.
Ok, I’ll agree with the first sentence as well as the first part of the second sentence. But I didn’t find much pleasure in this book at all. I don’t know, maybe I’m still too immature. Nowatka goes on to say:
It takes 100 pages for Clarke to establish her milieu, but most readers, once enchanted, will remain under her spell until the very last page.
Now, I’ll tell you it takes closer to two hundred pages for he story to get going. And, as I said earlier, I didn’t feel enchanted at all to read the book at that point.
Looking elsewhere, I found a review for the Houston Chronicle (9/17/2004) by John Freeman. In his review, Freeman states:
If Harry Potter is the kind of book that makes you want to be a kid again, Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell is the kind of novel that makes you realize being an adult should be a whole lot more fun than it is.
Really? Where did he see that kind of evidence? Did he and I read the same book? Honestly, when I read this book, I only wished to read/watch/do something more enjoyable. The people in the book do not reveal how much fun it is to be an adult. In fact, most of them are bored to death with their adult lives. The only person who seems to be having ANY kind of fun in the book is The Man with the Thistle-down Hair (that’s the only name he’s ever given in the book) and he’s the bad guy. So I fail to see how this book in any way can make one realize that being an adult should be a lot more fun. Perhaps Mr. Freeman just doesn’t have enough fun in his life.
Continuing my search, I found a review by Helen Brown on Telegraph.co.uk (9/14/2004). In her review, Ms. Brown states:
Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell is not a book for cocktail gossip around a hip, urban table. It is a book for a favourite armchair, for readers in patched cardigans, with log fires and buttered muffins. Should your present circumstances offer none of these comforts, do not be deterred. You need only dip into this big, bubbling cauldron of a book to feel that Clarke has conjured them all for you.
Ok, this must be why I didn’t like this book. I don’t wear cardigans; I prefer cookies to muffins and I like to sit on a couch more than an armchair. No wonder I was having trouble getting into this book! In all seriousness, I completely disagree. Any book can be a great conversational piece (whether the person liked it or not). And it can be read anywhere someone chooses to lug this tome (I read it on the bus to and from work). Brown goes on to say:
Above all, Clarke makes her magical story ridiculously engrossing. I only wish I could summon up a book as imaginatively stodgy in which to hibernate next winter.
Ok, how? Brown spends most of her critique summarizing the book and a few sentences at the end explaining Clarke’s approach to magic and her “alternate historical timeline”. It’s clear that she likes it, but she never really explains what makes it so appealing to her.
For me, part of what makes the book interesting is also what makes it boring. Ms. Clarke wrote the book as if it were an actual novel that was written in the 1800s. Everything from the spelling of certain words to the footnotes to the phrasing and style of writing makes the book feel just like it came from that era. If I didn’t know that it was written recently, I would have thought that it was from that period. While I applaud Ms. Clarke for making such a strong and different choice, I felt that it hindered my enjoyment of the book, probably because I never enjoyed the novels of that time period. It took me back to college and high school when I had to read (and report on) such books. They bored me to death because nothing ever happened, or if something did happen, it was so overly detailed in the book that any excitement from said event was lost to the reader. And that’s exactly how I felt with this novel.
Now I will allow that I may be ignorant concerning the author’s intent with this book. I may not be the “target audience”. (I mean, look at all the positive reviews that this book has received! There’s got to be something there, right?) However, if I read a book for over two hundred pages and by that point nothing has happened (or at least it feels that way) then something obviously isn’t working and should be adjusted. But maybe that’s just me.
