Advertisement
Anybody else read it? What did you think? Want to have a spoiler-laden discussion about it? ;-)
posted by:
|
Berkeley
|
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Unsu...
Re: Jonathan Strange
Fri, April 1, 2005 - 5:42 AMI would, but I couldn't get past the first 50 pages. ;) -
-
Re: Jonathan Strange
Fri, April 1, 2005 - 9:01 AMit really could have been several hundred pages shorter. Beautifully written but waaaaay too long. The last 100 pages were the best. -
-
Re: Jonathan Strange
Fri, April 1, 2005 - 9:47 AMGood-I'm glad you've said that-I'm slogging my way through it. (And I don't slog, I devour).
-
Re: Jonathan Strange
Fri, April 1, 2005 - 4:45 PMYeah, I agree, it started reallllly slow (although I actually I liked the very starting part with the York Magicians), and there were bits all through where I just didn't care (as soon as they started talking about taking magic to war, I was groaning inwardly--like come *on*). There could have been a lot less of Norrel altogether for my money--but where it was good, it was great! I loved the kind of primitive brutality she gives Faerie...John Uskglass drinking mare's milk from a stone cup. Very interesting. And the mouse potion.
It seems like I've read a lot of books lately that needed editing (Neal Stephensen's "Quicksilver", also).
Did you think the footnotes added or detracted? -
-
Re: Jonathan Strange
Sat, April 2, 2005 - 4:56 PMI loved the footnotes but could have done without them.
I've slogged through Quicksilver & The Confusion but am waiting on the third book long enough to breathe!
But I'll also alway s go for the looooooooong ones. New Tad Williams...
-
-
-
-
Re: Jonathan Strange
Sat, April 2, 2005 - 5:50 PMIt's a Dickensian novel, written in a style that's pretty true to the 10th century, when books didn't have to compete with cinema and television, but developed their stories at a much more leisurely pace. If you go in knowing this it's easier to let the book proceed at its own pace and not expect a lot of action. There's plot aplenty in there, and lots of great characters, too. It's a much subtler book, and more skillfully constructed than 90% of modern fantasy (meaning, I guess, the glut of elves and dwarves and magic swords books that followed on the rage for Lord of the Rings beginning about 40 years ago). It's possible this sort of novel either is one's thing or not, but if you think you'll love an epic story of real magic, take a deep breath, step back a hundred and fifty years, and dig in for the long haul. It's worth it. -
-
Re: Jonathan Strange
Sat, April 2, 2005 - 5:51 PMOoop, typo. That's 19th century.
<fumble-fingers. Yeesh!> -
-
Re: Jonathan Strange
Mon, April 4, 2005 - 12:18 AMI was gonna say, you must be thinking of a different Dickens. ;-)
Yeah, I didn't know starting out that that's what it was going to be, but I basically got the hang of it. It reads much like a serialized novel.
-
-
-
Re: Jonathan Strange
Tue, April 12, 2005 - 6:22 PMIt took me a long to get through it, but by the end I loved it. Initially I was put off by the footnotes, but I actually started looking forward to them after a while.
