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 Wheel of Time” cribs liberally from Tolkien — an author who wrote his books solely because he liked making up languages.

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.


  1. samjshah

    Ah! I don’t read fantasy, but I was so excited by the description of the book that I bought it — hardcover — the day it was released. I never buy hardcover. Ever.

    And I got really into it for the first 300 pages or so. Then I had to put it down to do life stuff, and when I came back to it, enough time had passed where I knew I’d have to start over to really get back into it. And that task, well, it’s Sisyphean. I don’t want to start it again only to have the same thing happen. What I need is a good summer vacation.

    Ooops. Squandered that away. Well, there’s always next summer.

  2. Thanks for the link!

    I was enthralled by Harry Potter at the beginning, but I agree with the blockquote’s author about (my least favorite) book 5: already done with the set-up but too early to launch the climax, so we’re treated to many hundreds of pages of thumb-twiddling.

    “Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell” sounds fun, though! I’ll add it to my “to read” list.😀

  3. Ms. Shah: For me, summer vacation always seems to drag by. Once it’s over, though, it seems like so short. Funny how that works.

    Mr. Hanson: Glad I could help. If you’re curious how I found your blog, I searched for “his dark materials pullman atheist” or something like that on Google.

  1. 1 Fanboy Fantasy « Off the Tenure Track

    […] burned me inside, at a level that I sensed something rotten with the pulp of cheap fantasy. I couldn’t quite place my finger on what it was, at first, but now I […]




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s



%d bloggers like this: