[Tes'thesula]

Quote

Very powerful magic with hardly any rules and hardly any consequences.

One of the most important parts of this book is about the terrible consequences of magic...

I quite enjoyed it. I liked the footnotes, the made the world seem that much more realised, and gave us little glimpses into the Golden age of English magic, and I thought the style of writing, though sometimes hard to get through, was ultimately a positive for the book.

The story isn't bad either

[amphibian]

RodeoRanch;252150 said:

Is she writing any sequels to it?

Seems to be. However, it'll be set a few years later and focus on different characters, lower on the social ladder - according to the Wikipedia article.

[jr_goddess]

stone monkey;252044 said:

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);
But apart from that it was fine...

Yes, how I do adore DFW and his footnotes!!

[Gem Windcaster]

I didn't get very far until it frickin bored me. Maybe I'll do a reread some day, but I doubt it. The language is very good I admit, but the characters don't interest me, neither do the environment. And the downside of writing with such a language is that you have to use so many words - too many words. The text just drags on and on and on...
I know it's supposed to be Dickensian but I it's nothing like Dickens. First of all, Dickens is fun, and not just witty. For it to be Dickensian you have to be drawn in by the genuine humorous scenes and situations, which this book doesn't have at all. This books idea of Dickensian seems to be 'strange' or 'original' - or even worse 'witty' - which doesn't cut it at all.

[Varunwe]

Quote

One of the most important parts of this book is about the terrible consequences of magic...

Bah, the consequences didn't come from the magic used, but from the magic user asked to do the magic. If Mr. Norell had taken his own advice, everything would have been fine.

Did Dickens and Austen really use the same writing style as Clarke?

[Gem Windcaster]

Varunwe;252948 said:

Did Dickens and Austen really use the same writing style as Clarke?

In the use of many words, yes, they are similar. But other than that, no.

[Asheroth]

I really enjoyed the book. It's slow moving but I found it really engaging. It helped that I found parts of it utterly hilarious:

Quote

...and as a result the French cavalry were quite unable to indulge in their favourite sport of fast and dexterous riding...

[Yellow]

@Gem Windcaster... it seems you're defining a major quality of "Dickensian" as being "something I enjoyed reading". That's not always going to be the case. Whether someone found something interesting, thought-provoking or (horror!) witty, is all a matter of taste. Language usage, sentence structure and themes are things that are much more objective, and easier to measure against.

If you just don't like it, that's fair enough.

Besides, being an expert in neither, the book struck me more as Austenianianian than Dickensianeneene

[Dagger]

I loved it, despite the slow pace. The footnotes were a story unto themselves and the book pretty much hurtles after the twist at the end of the second section. And I would discuss it further if the damn spoilers would work.

[Gem Windcaster]

Yellow;254389 said:

@Gem Windcaster... it seems you're defining a major quality of "Dickensian" as being "something I enjoyed reading". That's not always going to be the case. Whether someone found something interesting, thought-provoking or (horror!) witty, is all a matter of taste. Language usage, sentence structure and themes are things that are much more objective, and easier to measure against.

If you just don't like it, that's fair enough.

Besides, being an expert in neither, the book struck me more as Austenianianian than Dickensianeneene

For the sake of the discussion, I just want to make clear that I meant witty was a bad thing. A really bad thing. At any time that the author writes the wittiness on the reader's nose, you've gone down the hole imho. And I don't always enjoy Dickens. But that's mostly because some of his magic with the English language goes completely over my head - since English isn't my native language.

[stone monkey]

I personally don't enjoy Dickens because I believe he doesn't have a magic touch with the English language, far from it. And to be fair most of the people I've ever met for whom the English language (and its literature) has been a matter of professional interest have hated Dickens too.

I'll partially agree with you about wit -with this caveat - if the author is effectively smacking you about the chops with his or her wit, what they're doing isn't witty. Wit is about being amusing and clever and sophisticated and then trusting your audience to be attentive, clever and sophisticated enough to see what you're doing.

Bludgeoning them about the head with it just isn't cricket.

[Salt-Man Z]

Personally, I loved JS&MN. Absolutely loved it. It's definitely not traditional "fantasy" fantasy, but then, I'm not keen on a lot of "traditional" fantasy, either.

Of course, one could make the case that JS&MN is more "traditional" fantasy, as it draws on faeries and eerier aspects of fantasy that predate Tolkein's redefining of the genre.

Yes, it moves slowly, and the text is rather dense, but the payoff is definitely worth it. I honestly felt a little let down by the ending, but really just living in that world for a few weeks was what made it worth it to me. I don't often put down a book and immedately say "I've got read that again soon" but this was defintely one of those rare instances.

[Gem Windcaster]

stone monkey;258983 said:

I personally don't enjoy Dickens because I believe he doesn't have a magic touch with the English language, far from it. And to be fair most of the people I've ever met for whom the English language (and its literature) has been a matter of professional interest have hated Dickens too.

Well, fair enough. I might just be that too, since I don't get much of it - err..well, that which I don't get...

stone monkey;258983 said:

I'll partially agree with you about wit -with this caveat - if the author is effectively smacking you about the chops with his or her wit, what they're doing isn't witty. Wit is about being amusing and clever and sophisticated and then trusting your audience to be attentive, clever and sophisticated enough to see what you're doing.

Bludgeoning them about the head with it just isn't cricket.

Agreed.

[polishgenius]

It never struck me as particularly Dickensian. But partly because I've never been able to read Dickens. It's a very dry tone. Clarke does have that a bit, but she's able to be a bit more magical about it. It reminded me a bit of the tone of Carroll's Narnia books, albeit denser, it not being aimed at children, and slower.

What I think I liked most about it is that it leaves a lot just hinted at. The magic is very magical and faerie is made awesome by barely being described.