[Slum]

So, my friend loaned me this book, a doorstopper if I ever saw one. She swears it's the best fantasy she's ever read. I've always had the impression that it's the equivalent of the Bronte sisters do fantasy.

This thing is monstrously dense. Any opinions?

[Skywalker]

It shines in parts, but overall felt too slow and obsessed with detail to me. I liked it, but if you are looking for a quick action fix, this isn't it.

More Dickensian writing than Eriksonian.

[Slum]

By no means was I expecting a quick action fix, and I've read more than enough Brit Lit to be put-off by that aspect, but how does it rate as fantasy?

[Spindrift]

It's a fantastic book, i loved it to bits.

Slumgullion Spitteler;242958 said:

but how does it rate as fantasy?

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

[Slum]

@sd -- I mean, I guess, is how does it fare, creatively, against the best that fantasy has to offer? I know, from reviews and such, that Clarke has a surpassing command of the English language. But what I'm curious about, is if the book is fun to read.

[Aptorian]

I tried, got about 50 pages into it and gave up. Of couse I also had Night of Knives lying on the table next to it.

[Spindrift]

Slumgullion Spitteler;242991 said:

is if the book is fun to read.

short answer is Yes.

slightly less short answer is If you find people mostly just talking to each other Not Fun, then NO. otherwise yes.

[caladanbrood]

I must admit that this has been sitting neglected on my bookshelf at home for over a year now. It's just too big a task to ever make me want to start it. Of course, having the hardback copy doesn't help that too much;)

So much mainstream praise for a fantasy book makes me think it's very fantasy-lite though, considering the snobbishness you normally find towards the genre.

[Tif the Barber Boy]

I enjoyed it a great deal. Yes, it was very long, probably too long, but I never got bored or felt like giving up on it.

I suppose it may be categorized as fantasy-lite. But I'm not sure if thats a fair description. It is certainly creative and well-imagined - probably more creative than something like Naomi Novik's Temeraire. But the fantasy elements are not as in-your-face [no big dragons shooting fireballs at each other].

[Varunwe]

This was handsdown the worst book I've read last year . It's also the only fantasy book I hate. Some of my gripes: You're spoken to like a little baby, especially in the beginning. Footnotes going on for pages. 'Oh!' at least every page (you'll be allergic to Oh! by the time you've finished this book). Very powerful magic with hardly any rules and hardly any consequences. Secondary characters more interesting than primary characters. Practically no interaction between the two main characters. Stupidity of the main characters.

Quote

is if the book is fun to read.

Depends on your sense of humour. I thought it was plain stupid, but I seem to be in the minority.

[Skywalker]

Slumgullion Spitteler;242991 said:

@sd -- I mean, I guess, is how does it fare, creatively, against the best that fantasy has to offer? I know, from reviews and such, that Clarke has a surpassing command of the English language. But what I'm curious about, is if the book is fun to read.

It goes a lot into the technicalities of the magic system. Magic in this world is painstakingly done, very difficult, and full of nuance. There are no spectacles of note until well into the book. It is more of a procedure piece. The fantastic element is kept mostly understated. There are **minor spoiler**

Spoiler

fairy elements

**spoiler end** etc. but wont cause too many oohs and aahs or wonderment for a well read SFF fan.

[ch'arlz]

I found it to be rather well-written and engaging. As a sometime Anglophile, I enjoyed the settings and descriptions of the country. I shame-facedly admit that I view female writers of fantasy askance for the most part, but Ms. Clarke will get my voting $$$ for whatever she does.

[Varunwe]

Quote

It goes a lot into the technicalities of the magic system.

No it doesn't. It's just 'I read this and this book, and now I can do this spell'. Nowhere is there any explanation as to how the magic is done.

[Valgard]

I loved the book thought it was brilliantly written very evocative and captured the spirit and writing of the time she has set the book perfectly. The magical elements were present but not the be all and end all of the book. They were suitably mysterious throughout.

I must admit I loved the footnotes I didn't feel like I was being talked down to but rather that they added another level to the story and there is a second story almost following through the footnotes alongside the main book. The best way to think of the book is as if someone has added the footnotes in after the book was originally written to expand on the background of the world.

[Kage-za]

I loved the book, but in no way does it resemble high or epic fantasy. It reads as a cross between a Grimm fairy tale, a history of early 19th century England, and a period novel. Far from being tedious, I found the footnotes to be the most entertaining and delightful part.

The book is painstakingly written, witty, and never takes itself too seriously. I think it deserves any praise it has been given, as it is also very accessible, despite its density. But it's pretty safe to say that it's as far away from Erikson as it could be.

[Slum]

I read the first 30 pages or so, and while I like her writing, I think I'm going to put this one on the back-burner for a while. It's just soooo long! I guess I'm just feeling lazy.

[jr_goddess]

I really enjoyed reading that book. It's true that the story moves very, very slow, but I think it pays off in the end.

I will warn you that, IMO, the ending was a bit too open-ended for my tastes.

[Mezla PigDog]

I really enjoyed the book. I hated the footnotes at first but grew to love them. It felt more like a fairy-tale than fantasy to me though. However, I think it is really let down by the first section. As I recall (I read it a few years ago), there are three sections. The first section is soley about Mr Norrell who is by nature a very dull man. Accordingly, the first section is really quite dull. Once Jonathon Strange turns up, the pace picks up and a lot more happens.

So, in short, if you can make it through the first section, you will be rewarded by the middle and the end!!

[stone monkey]

I found the book irritating in the extreme - there are things I like about it; the footnotes (I ladore as my love for the work of David Foster Wallace attests); the ideas (which are great); but what I can't stand is the writing.

I do understand that what the author's doing is a pastiche of typical English 19thC writing style; as per Dickens et al. The problem is that I find this style (the originals, never mind a pastiche of them) to be utterly offensive one to actually have to read. I'm sure I wore an inch from my teeth due to grinding them in annoyance as I read the book.

But apart from that it was fine...

[RodeoRanch]

I really enjoyed the book.

Is she writing any sequels to it?