![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
regshoeI have spent the last week quietly panicking about Yuletide and reading Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell, which have made for an interesting combination. Anyway, my Yuletide fics are now mostly done, and I've finished the book!
I can't remember if I've said this before, but just in case: Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell is the best book ever and I love it a lot. Even after reading it so many times there are still things to enjoy and appreciate and think about, so here are some more thoughts...
I've been thinking a lot about how the book obscures its real point and misdirects the reader about where things might be going. Many of the book's major characters are introduced in oblique ways—Norrell in a parenthesis, Strange in a footnote (and, for his first actual appearance, in a mirror!), Lady Pole hidden in a corner, the Raven King in a random aside—and I now think this is part of a general strategy in how the plot is shaped and how, all through the early chapters, things go along one way while all the time the real story is whispering in the margins and the shadows—until it isn't.
The narrator contributes to this. Whether or not you think the narrator is really a specific in-universe figure, she certainly takes a distinctive in-universe perspective, I think particularly so early on in the book. There's more of her personal and idiosyncratic commentary on what's going on (the passage about the York magicians' misery at having to give up their magic; her description of a London party) and lots of casual use of the first person to give her opinions on characters and things. And it's a flawed perspective! She says things that the reader might want to question, like her complimentary description of Sir Walter (one which is soon, though subtly, undermined by his treatment of Emma) and her offhand mention of 'savages of the South Sea islands'. This is the perspective through which we're introduced to this world and invited to understand it—and that distinctive, whimsical narrative voice seems to fade out later on as the 'real' story asserts itself more strongly.
As for things whispering in the margins, there is really quite a bit of uncomfortable class stuff early on in the book, isn't there? Especially around Childermass and his relationship with Norrell, which I find myself particularly interested by this time round. We have the description of Childermass as 'one of that uncomfortable class of men' who are both clever and low-born, his manipulation (heavily implied to be magical) of Segundus who's in a position to write the letter to the Times, Drawlight finding out about Norrell by questioning his servants (and Childermass knowing about it and letting him, without telling Norrell), the Tubbs and Starhouse footnote, the important absence of the servants in the scene where Vinculus confronts Norrell, the Harley-street servants seeing the enchantment when Sir Walter can't (interestingly, neither can Stephen at first)... yeah, all along we're being told that this is a story about two gentlemen and shown something very different.
Perhaps it's all the D. K. Broster I've been reading, but I have a new appreciation for the historical work that must have gone into writing this book. There's so much there! Not only the general depiction of life in late Georgian/Regency London, the Napoleonic wars and so on, but the specific details—real publishers mentioned in connection with the characters' writings, highly specific pieces of furniture and clothing, the details of wartime in the Peninsular and Waterloo chapters, period attitudes to all sorts of things... historical exposition passages are especially entertaining in the voice of Clarke's narrator, although they're rather different from Broster's. Anyway, it certainly wouldn't be too difficult to cross JSMN over with any one of Broster's French books, given the closeness in setting. I'd go for "Mr Rowl"—I can see Juliana being keen on magic!
In light of Piranesi, it was really interesting seeing all the different ways in which characters don't quite understand the world speaking to them: Norrell going out of his way to deny its existence, Strange having to work so hard and drive himself mad to see it, Segundus seeing messages everywhere but being unable to read them, Stephen and Lady Pole lost within their enchantments ('a pane of dirty, grey glass'), Childermass's vision of the speaking sky, Arabella and Sir Walter not understanding what's the matter with Lady Pole, even Vinculus (arguably the one out of all the characters who understands most of what's really going on) unable to read himself. They're all such a contrast to Piranesi!
Somewhat related to Piranesi, I've also been thinking about possible religious interpretations of JSMN. I've been happily charmed for a while by the fact that the people of Northern England call John Uskglass 'thee' (not how you're supposed to address a king, but it is how you address God), and the God-king angle there is fairly obvious. Religion is also tied into the book's social themes, with the established Church appearing more or less how you'd expect it to in the lives of the more respectable characters and a few significant appearances of Dissent in connection with magic (John Uskglass is described as looking like a Methodist minister; one of the characters mentioned as suddenly being able to perform magic when it's returned to England is a Quaker). Actually, however, I've come to the conclusion that John Uskglass at least thinks of himself as more of a deist god, and this ties into another thing I was thinking about while reading—
—which is Strange and what he gets wrong about magic. The Strangite-Norrellite contrast presented at the end of the book feels a bit unbalanced, really—much of what Norrellites say in criticism of Strange is false, malicious slander, whereas most of what Strangites say in criticising Norrell is true, and Strange is the more obviously sympathetic in his (publicly presented) view of magic, with his whole 'magic for everyone, even women and unrespectable people' thing. He's the one to recognise what's actually happened to John Uskglass's English magic and it's him who does the magic that ends up bringing it back. But here's how John Uskglass thinks of Strange: 'the second shall long to behold me... the name of the other shall be Arrogance'. Now, keeping in mind that John Uskglass is absolutely still my favourite character and will be forever, I think Strange puts too much emphasis on him. This is most clear at the end, when the Strangites are going on about how important John Uskglass is and referring to him as 'his Grace the King', while two chapters ago John Uskglass himself appeared in a small, quiet scene to tidy up a few loose ends and not do anything spectacular at all before quietly disappearing again. Yes, English magic is founded on what he made, but he himself is not the point of it—he himself doesn't think he is. (There's also the way Strange, for all his championing of magical democracy, can't quite break out of his 'gentlemanly' approach to the whole thing, at least until he drives himself mad, but that's more to do with him as a character).
Ultimately, Strange and Norrell aren't the point (as Vinculus so conclusively tells us), but John Uskglass isn't really the point either. English magic, nothing more nor less, is the point. It's a very ambitious book!
I can't remember if I've said this before, but just in case: Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell is the best book ever and I love it a lot. Even after reading it so many times there are still things to enjoy and appreciate and think about, so here are some more thoughts...
I've been thinking a lot about how the book obscures its real point and misdirects the reader about where things might be going. Many of the book's major characters are introduced in oblique ways—Norrell in a parenthesis, Strange in a footnote (and, for his first actual appearance, in a mirror!), Lady Pole hidden in a corner, the Raven King in a random aside—and I now think this is part of a general strategy in how the plot is shaped and how, all through the early chapters, things go along one way while all the time the real story is whispering in the margins and the shadows—until it isn't.
The narrator contributes to this. Whether or not you think the narrator is really a specific in-universe figure, she certainly takes a distinctive in-universe perspective, I think particularly so early on in the book. There's more of her personal and idiosyncratic commentary on what's going on (the passage about the York magicians' misery at having to give up their magic; her description of a London party) and lots of casual use of the first person to give her opinions on characters and things. And it's a flawed perspective! She says things that the reader might want to question, like her complimentary description of Sir Walter (one which is soon, though subtly, undermined by his treatment of Emma) and her offhand mention of 'savages of the South Sea islands'. This is the perspective through which we're introduced to this world and invited to understand it—and that distinctive, whimsical narrative voice seems to fade out later on as the 'real' story asserts itself more strongly.
As for things whispering in the margins, there is really quite a bit of uncomfortable class stuff early on in the book, isn't there? Especially around Childermass and his relationship with Norrell, which I find myself particularly interested by this time round. We have the description of Childermass as 'one of that uncomfortable class of men' who are both clever and low-born, his manipulation (heavily implied to be magical) of Segundus who's in a position to write the letter to the Times, Drawlight finding out about Norrell by questioning his servants (and Childermass knowing about it and letting him, without telling Norrell), the Tubbs and Starhouse footnote, the important absence of the servants in the scene where Vinculus confronts Norrell, the Harley-street servants seeing the enchantment when Sir Walter can't (interestingly, neither can Stephen at first)... yeah, all along we're being told that this is a story about two gentlemen and shown something very different.
Perhaps it's all the D. K. Broster I've been reading, but I have a new appreciation for the historical work that must have gone into writing this book. There's so much there! Not only the general depiction of life in late Georgian/Regency London, the Napoleonic wars and so on, but the specific details—real publishers mentioned in connection with the characters' writings, highly specific pieces of furniture and clothing, the details of wartime in the Peninsular and Waterloo chapters, period attitudes to all sorts of things... historical exposition passages are especially entertaining in the voice of Clarke's narrator, although they're rather different from Broster's. Anyway, it certainly wouldn't be too difficult to cross JSMN over with any one of Broster's French books, given the closeness in setting. I'd go for "Mr Rowl"—I can see Juliana being keen on magic!
In light of Piranesi, it was really interesting seeing all the different ways in which characters don't quite understand the world speaking to them: Norrell going out of his way to deny its existence, Strange having to work so hard and drive himself mad to see it, Segundus seeing messages everywhere but being unable to read them, Stephen and Lady Pole lost within their enchantments ('a pane of dirty, grey glass'), Childermass's vision of the speaking sky, Arabella and Sir Walter not understanding what's the matter with Lady Pole, even Vinculus (arguably the one out of all the characters who understands most of what's really going on) unable to read himself. They're all such a contrast to Piranesi!
Somewhat related to Piranesi, I've also been thinking about possible religious interpretations of JSMN. I've been happily charmed for a while by the fact that the people of Northern England call John Uskglass 'thee' (not how you're supposed to address a king, but it is how you address God), and the God-king angle there is fairly obvious. Religion is also tied into the book's social themes, with the established Church appearing more or less how you'd expect it to in the lives of the more respectable characters and a few significant appearances of Dissent in connection with magic (John Uskglass is described as looking like a Methodist minister; one of the characters mentioned as suddenly being able to perform magic when it's returned to England is a Quaker). Actually, however, I've come to the conclusion that John Uskglass at least thinks of himself as more of a deist god, and this ties into another thing I was thinking about while reading—
—which is Strange and what he gets wrong about magic. The Strangite-Norrellite contrast presented at the end of the book feels a bit unbalanced, really—much of what Norrellites say in criticism of Strange is false, malicious slander, whereas most of what Strangites say in criticising Norrell is true, and Strange is the more obviously sympathetic in his (publicly presented) view of magic, with his whole 'magic for everyone, even women and unrespectable people' thing. He's the one to recognise what's actually happened to John Uskglass's English magic and it's him who does the magic that ends up bringing it back. But here's how John Uskglass thinks of Strange: 'the second shall long to behold me... the name of the other shall be Arrogance'. Now, keeping in mind that John Uskglass is absolutely still my favourite character and will be forever, I think Strange puts too much emphasis on him. This is most clear at the end, when the Strangites are going on about how important John Uskglass is and referring to him as 'his Grace the King', while two chapters ago John Uskglass himself appeared in a small, quiet scene to tidy up a few loose ends and not do anything spectacular at all before quietly disappearing again. Yes, English magic is founded on what he made, but he himself is not the point of it—he himself doesn't think he is. (There's also the way Strange, for all his championing of magical democracy, can't quite break out of his 'gentlemanly' approach to the whole thing, at least until he drives himself mad, but that's more to do with him as a character).
Ultimately, Strange and Norrell aren't the point (as Vinculus so conclusively tells us), but John Uskglass isn't really the point either. English magic, nothing more nor less, is the point. It's a very ambitious book!
no subject
Date: Dec. 19th, 2020 08:22 pm (UTC)And it can't be said enough times! <3
You're so right in that you can enjoy and appreciate it, no matter how many times you've read it... there is always something new to discover, a different character to focus on, a footnote to think of... etc. etc. etc., it really is the best! :D
Also, definitely--the book obscures its real point, and that's one of the reasons why it's so interesting: is it about these two magicians? is it about the raven King? Is it about magic itself? I like how the parts make up the whole, and everything leads us to The Point, which is magic, like you said, and yet there is always going to be something that escapes us, something whispering in the margins and the shadows--even when things become more clear, there is some mystery remaining, and I love that!!! I love how accepting that mystery is accepting the magic and how it may appear... (in that sense, it's very Piranesi-ish--you don't have to control/study/understand it, you just have to accept it, and it will talk to you! <3)
And yes, all that class stuff is uncomfortable, I agree! But in a way, it also makes the story feel realistic (there may be magic in this world, but people are still assholes towards lower classes...) and also it makes the ending better, because those lower class people are the ones who save the day (along with women, and they all get a new, much deserved agency). Like you say, we are told that this story is about two gentlemen, but what whispers in the margins is definitely something/someone else!
The narrator is one of my favourite parts, because you can totally see her perspective and personality,it's such an unique (and at times funny!) voice. Do you have any theories about who she is? Sometimes I like to think she is Flora Greysteel, or Miss Redruth... although perhaps a mysterious, unnamed narrator is better for such a book!
And yes to all the historical research! I am also in awe of all the work she must have done. (Also, a JS&MN+Mr Rowl crossover would be a thing of beauty!)
Thanks for sharing your thoughts about it!!
no subject
Date: Dec. 19th, 2020 08:39 pm (UTC)there is always something new to discover, a different character to focus on, a footnote to think of...
I know, right? I love that feeling of reading a familiar passage and noticing something new about it or seeing it in a different way.
About obscurity and mystery: something I really appreciated about the ending this time was how confused it is—all these diverging views of magic, arguments and theories, none of the characters having any idea what really happened or what's going on now. Just more mystery! It is great fun.
Oh yes, I meant that it was deliberately uncomfortable—another way in which the book undermines itself at first! And, yeah, it's interesting that more focus on the servants' perspective comes back at the end, with the Hurtfew scenes (and all the stuff about Lascelles that's just like, Being A Gentleman Is Very Bad, Actually. That makes a nice contrast to FotH :P).
The narrator! I do like the idea of it being Miss Redruth (or possibly her sister Emily, in some of the more dramatic bits...), but in general I prefer not to see her as an in-universe character because of all the awkward things it would imply about her omniscience. She is an omniscient novel narrator, presented appropriately for the context, and I agree that her voice is very funny and fun to read :D
no subject
Date: Dec. 19th, 2020 09:05 pm (UTC)About the ending, you're right, it's a total mess, everything is left out there, in the open, it's so great! Even if the sequel never happens, I like how we were left in a state of chaos and mystery--the Raven King totally approves! ;)
Haha, it totally does! (Hmmm, another intriguing crossover possibility!)
And the narrator is ultimately another mystery, which I guess is the best possible way to tell this story! ;) I do like the idea of knowing more about her, how she ended up narrating the story, etc...
Was that a Brontë sisters joke? ;)
no subject
Date: Dec. 20th, 2020 06:54 am (UTC)Was that a Brontë sisters joke? ;)
:D I mean, the three daughters and one son of a Yorkshire clergyman who all take up the same profession—that's definitely a cheeky reference, although they're thirty years or so earlier than in real life.
no subject
Date: Dec. 27th, 2020 09:11 am (UTC)no subject
Date: Dec. 27th, 2020 05:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: Dec. 28th, 2020 05:57 am (UTC)no subject
Date: Dec. 28th, 2020 05:30 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: Dec. 20th, 2020 10:06 am (UTC)Basically I was hearteyes.jpg while reading the whole post. I loved it! Thank you for sharing your thoughts!
no subject
Date: Dec. 20th, 2020 10:36 am (UTC)no subject
Date: Dec. 20th, 2020 06:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: Dec. 20th, 2020 07:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: Dec. 21st, 2020 06:17 am (UTC)no subject
Date: Dec. 21st, 2020 08:22 pm (UTC)This is great post -- thank you for sharing your thoughts.
no subject
Date: Dec. 22nd, 2020 05:13 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: Dec. 27th, 2020 09:13 am (UTC)no subject
Date: Dec. 27th, 2020 05:51 pm (UTC)