Posts Tagged ‘literature’
Fantasy kinda sucks. As a longtime fan of the genre, I’ve somewhat earned some right to say that.
While “Harry Potter” is fun to read — excepting the fifth book — its colorful characters and whimsical settings are bogged down by weak writing.
“His Dark Materials” has similar strengths and flaws, and was worsened even further by the author’s tendency to proselytize.
The worst of all of them is that “Eragon” series; it reads like it was written by a 19-year-old homeschooler from Montana. In part because it was.
Whatever Neil Gaiman writes, he tends to exhibit the same self-indulgent fascination with multi-pantheon crossovers, leaving Terry Brooks alone among living fantasists for being above reproach. After all, Brooks is the only one who doesn’t take his fantasy settings seriously.
It’s become a rule, therefore, that fantasy as a whole is a thin, shallow genre of fiction with especially egregious pretensions that it has meaningful depth and that it’s romanticism profound rather than transparent. Science fiction, unfortunately, is much of the same.
Fortunately, because the overall crappiness of fantastic literature is a rule, there are going to be exceptions. I just spent the better part of two days — almost spilling over into three — reading one of the most important and, dare I say, literary exceptions in recent memory.
“Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell” had interested me ever since I first saw it on the discount bookshelves and bestseller lists, but I decided against bothering with it. I didn’t have the money to buy it, and it was too contemporary to be in the school library, besides. Having recently graduated to the local library, I saw it Thursday last and, on a whim, checked it out.
Though buying this book in its native Britain would set me back a good 7 pounds, I’d call it an even trade: the hardcover weighs almost that much. There are nearly 800 pages in the hardcover version I spent a weekend reading — that makes it roughly the size of a King James Bible after a begat-ectomy.
Despite that it reads like Jane Austen and the humanity of its title characters are straight out of Dickens — if you’re sure I exaggerate, you’ll appreciate this book more than I did — I enjoyed every moment.
I shouldn’t make my admiration seem so unlikely — I was bound to like “Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell” from the very start. It has the flair of a finely researched history, and more footnotes per page than “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich,” a history in which the author, for whatever reason, apologizes for including as many footnotes as he does.
It’s no criticism of the novel to say that these footnotes were my favorite part of the 7-pound blunt object that is “Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell,” and I suppose quite a few readers came to the same conclusion. Indeed, the footnotes were enjoyable enough, and added so much to the world of the novel, that when the author decided to make her second book an anthology of stories, at least a few of these stores were inspired by her first novel’s footnotes.
There’s a lot of story in the book, and it would be difficult to summarize it without unbecoming spoilers and lengthy exposition, but, given fantasy these days, that depth is one of the great charms of “Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell.” Suffice it to say that the whole of it focuses on the careers of two British magicians of the Regency period, and is full of charmingly fleshed-out characters.
The early 19th century is the such a refreshing setting for fantasy. Rather than a world where dwarves and elves and orcs are the face of the fantastic, one of the great squabbles between the two title characters is over the status and usefulness of fairies, creatures that had once encompassed the whole of British fantasy before Tolkien injected high fantasy with his mish-mash blending of Old Norse mythology and Anglo-Saxon epic. However well-written “Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell” is, and however well it stands on its own merits, that it ignores the 50-year-old precedent of swords and sorcery, a subgenre that might as well be mimeographed from the worst parts of “The Lord of the Rings,” is one of the greatest strengths that author Susanna Clarke chose for her world of British magic.
After reading so much of dwarves and elves and orcs, a reprieve was due; we needed a reprieve into densely imagined real literature from dense-minded pulp literature, even if that it lasts only a weekend.
But what a weekend.
Part Three of Four in my series on my two master teachers.
My master teacher said:
I do not invite them over to my house; I do not let them sleep on my couch if they’re having trouble at home, or are kicked out.
Then she says:
I gave up being a counselor a long time ago.
I almost don’t believe it. She is dedicated to our students, even if as strictly students. She gets to know their family life, learns habits, prejudices and excuses. She keeps some notes on each of them in her computer, and remembers the other details.
She doesn’t go to sports, but goes to events during lunch. She congratulates students on their participation or success in either.
I wouldn’t know her room had walls if I were impressionable. Every square inch within reach of her shortish frame is touched by some poster, or project, or the butcher paper replica of the human body for her psychology class.
As far as I am concerned, she teaches her government/economics class, and she teaches it jointly with her English class. She keeps a library of books in her classroom, mostly of the Scholastic-published variety.
The books run the gamut, from The Odyssey backwards to If You Give A Mouse A Cookie, though the largest concentration of books is between the eighth- and tenth-grade reading levels.
This is senior English. This is about-to-graduate-and-never-go-back-to-school-again English. She considers herself justified.
These kids graduated from their intervention programs, and the best might scratch the cusp of achievement if they joined an Advanced Placement class. She’s more worried about teaching them to love reading than to spot a synecdoche at 500 yards, or to parse iambic pentameter.
In general, and paraphrased, her philosophy:
Maximum Ride teaches them more about reading than The Scarlet Letter for one reason and one reason only: They won’t read The Scarlet Letter. They’ll wait until the teacher gives them the answers. On the other hand, they’ll read Maximum Ride.
Are her priorities straight? I’m inclined to think that they are.