|
|
Post by lynn on Mar 15, 2010 19:47:50 GMT -5
I'm reading this book now as part of my uni work (studying folklore in contemporary fantasy) and I'm finding it a brilliant piece of work. It's complex, beautifully written, and a genuine callback to the old school manner of writing (very Austenian) without being preposterous and dragging like some old books can, it feels very modern. It's very long but it's a book that you can put down to make dinner and it's still interesting enough to pick up again later, though it's not heavily plot-driven. If I didn't have a time constraint I'd probably spend a good week or two reading it and be happy because there's no need to rush it, there's no plot imperatives dragging you along. The characters are interesting and well-drawn.
It's about magicians and fairies and pulls in some cool folklore while creating a well-defined alternate world of its own.
I haven't even finished it yet but I highly recommend it.
|
|
|
|
Post by professordave on Mar 18, 2010 21:26:05 GMT -5
I listened to the audio CD of this book and then reread it later. It is an excellent fantasy novel that, as you stated, pays homage to classic literature without being stuffy. The two main characters are very well realized (Strange is the more interesting of the two) but the best part is how well the secondary characters are written. The story takes place over many years and moves easily between the fairy world and the "real" world of the early 19th century. I think its one of the top 20 fantasy novels of all time (no, I don't have an actual list).
|
|
|
|
Post by lynn on Mar 18, 2010 21:32:21 GMT -5
I heard that the audio version of the book wasn't so good because they read out the footnotes, which interrupts the flow of the story, was that in the version you heard? I liked the footnotes, but it's good to be able to read them if you choose to, and when you choose to.
I have finished it now and the ending was just as good as the rest, although attended, for me, by that feeling of disappointment that naturally comes with finishing a good book.
Funny that you thought Strange was more interesting, because I found Strange more likeable, but both so well drawn that they were equally interesting to read about.
Also, I forgot to say earlier, Mr Norrell is actually a Gilbert, so every time I read his full name I was like, "Sean's in the book! No wait, it's a cantankerous old man. No wait...."
|
|
|
|
Post by professordave on Mar 19, 2010 22:43:29 GMT -5
Yeah, the audio CD included the footnotes, but it didn't bother me, and I thought the actor did a fine job with the characters. As to why I thought Strange was more interesting, probably because his character goes through more changes in the novel. He develops, whereas Norrell never changes that much throughout the story. Both men seem to be embodiments of opposing philosophies, enlightenment and romanticism, and how those two ideas would have handled magic and the fairy world if such things existed.
|
|
|
|
Post by lynn on Mar 19, 2010 23:22:59 GMT -5
Yes, and yet they never became two dimensional charicatures of enlightenment and romanticism, because they had journeys and were so well drawn. I guess I'm just a sucker for cantankerous old men, I always love them in fiction, so it evens out their interest for me!
I also liked that the different were so different but got along so well because of their shared love of magic. It's almost inspirational really, if two such disperate personalities can learn to get along...
|
|
