One of the main gripes in this review is that you find the self-serving, irritating behaviour of the two main characters very unrealistic and unlikely. Unfortunately the behaviour of Strange & Norrell is a perfect depiction of the internal fighting that can easily and often arises in academia. You specifically mention that you don't think that Norrell would be allowed to keep all the books - unfortunately, monopolisation of and access to study material in academia is a major aspect of the scene, often at least as important as the research itself. All Susanna Clarke has done is replace the Enlightment "Natural Philosophers" with "Magicians". Her satire of these types of people is excellent, and very realistic. However it is entirely understandable if you get easily fed up with these types of personage's behaviour! I often can't bear deliberately cringe-worthy comedy (Alan Partridge!!) even if the execution of the comedy is excellent, just because he's too close to the mark and I can't bear to watch such an unpleasant person just go around and be horrible. But I do love Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell, and I love Susanna Clarke's short stories as well. I find at the end of Strange & Norrell that their lack of consequence is very poignant, as well as funny.

I loved this book way too much. I think it is probably the greatest novel ever written.

It honestly blows my mind how severely people's opinions can differ. I found this book at a charity sale when I was 12 and was hooked from the first page. I'm currently reading it for the fifth time, and I'm convinced it will always be my favourite book. The use of language, the description, the footnotes, the fantastical elements combined with historical realism are just perfect imo. This book blew my mind when I first read it, and I still love it so much❤️

I love this book. Im a reader , not a writer. I dont feel I have the credentials to properly judge a true author, so I never do. I will say Ive read this book several times. I love the escape and storyline, and the most of all the characters ..........

I finished yesterday and think it was super-entertaining. As for the lack of female characters, I don't really think they were that few, or that obnoxious. The times were very different and women really were not as independent and autonomous (and even as interesting) as nowadays, so, we cannot compare or expect them to be like us. The same goes for black people like Stephen Black, and his descriptions and behaviour during the development of the story are very remarkable, him being one of my favourite characters. The way it was written, as a XIXth century novel, was not only interesting but super-adequate, adding to the charm of the book. I had great laughs with that book, loved it to bits and took my time to read the footnotes and add my own notes. Maybe I should not be writing in this post here, since my view is the opposite of most on this thread, but I believe is also good to peruse some different opinions, maybe.

I'd be very curious to hear what you think about Susanna's short story collection 'The Ladies of Grace Adieu'. It has a much more female-centric focus, and while some of the stories directly link to Strange and Norrell, it's also just enjoyable in it's own right

Interesting. It seems like a lot of people love this book, and a lot of people hate it. I'm not sure whether I should pick it up or not...

You know from Goodreads that I love this book! It's funny, though, 'cause I agree with you: Strange & Norrell are arrogant, egoistic, and care about magic over people. This is what they are, it just doesn't make me dislike the book. The two magicians have studied magic from books, or have some innate ability like Strange, but they don't know even half of what English magic or faerie magic is about, and so they are able to completely overlook what is happening around them! In the TV series they made them both more likable, especially Strange, and I got so angry over that - these people are not supposed to be looked up to (I know people in the comments say that the characters are unlikable even in the series, but they are much more full of themselves in the books)! They also downplayed Stephen Black's parts and made him less heroic to boost up the magicians, and that was the one change I really didn't like in the series. Stephen Black & the Gentleman are my favourites. Oh, and to clarify: by my Goodreads comment I didn't mean that the ending justified the rest of the book: I meant that I felt like the end was the proper culmination to what the book had been proclaiming all along: that the fact that these two people are "gentlemen" doesn't mean they know what to do any better than the rest, and perhaps even worse. I also enjoyed Clarke's Dickensian writing style, the footnotes that made the world seem older and deeper and more historical than just the main story, and I loved how she created a complete mythical English past. I'm one of those people who often likes slow books where perhaps not a lot happens, especially if I enjoy the writing style, haha. It's a bummer that you didn't enjoy the book, but different strokes and all that. :)

Was it hard to follow the audiobook with all of the footnotes? I started this book years ago, but haven't finished it. Which is weird, b/c I was enjoying the story. But it's a slow read and very long. So I'd read some and then put the book down for long stretches of time.

I'm 600 pages in. it's been 2 years. It is so dense. I enjoy it but it can be dry. It's like eating dry rusks.

I couldn't finish it as well. But i wonder how can you hold such a heavy book for such a long time.

I picked this book up because a few people I know raved about it. I felt it was overly long and a bit of a slog. I don't remember much about it, but just remember wondering why people loved it so much.

How did the footnotes work in audio book format? Was the story's narrative interrupted and delayed each time a footnote applied? That's weird.

This is actually one of my top fantasy reads. However, I completely see where your criticisms are coming from and one in particular I agree with is that this book could have easily been trimmed down. I felt this more on a reread where the pages and pages of footnotes narrating secondary world stories that had nothing to do with the main plot got a bit much. I have reread the book with and without footnotes and honestly, barring a few, the book works fine without them imo. I do think characters like Mr Norrell (insecure hoarder of knowledge) and Strange (obsessed with a project to the exclusion of everything else) exist and the book depicted that quite well. Great review. 🙂

I liked this book, but I actually agree with you about everything! haha It's so strange. The characters were terrible people (I think I hated Norrell the most), with a few rare exceptions. I guess I enjoyed that because I tend to like the experience of reading about terrible characters, which is odd if you think about it. I also read recently that Clarke is writing another book set in the same universe/time, but focusing on the downtrodden characters - such as the women and the poor characters. I'm super interested to see if she can actually pull off interesting female characters with that one, because that - along with the super uneven pace - was one of my biggest problems with this book.

hmmm, this is still on my TBR. I tried watching the series, but it lost my attention after the first 30 min. I'm having second thoughts about it now, but I won't bin it until I give the book a go (adaptations often suck) ;-D Thanks for making a negative review. It's always nice to see what problems people had with popular books

I do agree with you. Full stop

I love the book a lot!

I've got to say, while I've only been subscribed for a few months, you are one of the most refreshingly honest and blunt BookTubers I've seen. You call them like you see them, even if it goes against the popularity of a book. It's refreshing. Keep it up! (PS - and you get bonus points for being a fan of my personal favorite series/author (Riyria/Sullivan)!!!)

Todd here! Nice review

I’m on chapter 28 and bored out of my mind.

KItty, I admit I loved Jonathan Strange. Having said that I have never managed to bring myself to read it a second time. While loving Jonathan Strange I must say that I loved LOVED your rant against it. Everything you say is relevant and perceptive. For me the key is exactlywhat you say - Clarke can write. Boringly, I am a huge fan of the 18 Century. I believe what she wrote was a cod 18th century gothic novel with glimpses of modern sensibilities. Norrell and Strange exactly like you say and when you read biogs of people like Byron you often think... why the F did they do that... what a P! Spoiled and Idiotic, just like her characters. Except unlike her characters Byron really could not keep it in this trousers. And selfish - hugely selfish and self obsessed as were most of the government. (Can recommend -Mad Bad and Dangerous to know by Karl Shaw. You would not believe what a bunch of turds the upper classes were (Probably still are!) You say the novel could have been 1/3 of the size. Absolutely. Until you read things like The Castle of Otranto & Fantasmagoriana ( a 'short' story collection) which drone on and on and on until you lose the will to live. So great rant and you are spot on with everything you said. very perceptive Indeed, I was 180 pages in before I warmed to it, which is probably why I can't being myself to ever re read it. Cheers Paul

Good on you for putting out an honest opinion! I expect to have a love/hate relationship with it

Ooh, an opposing opinion! I tried watching the series some time ago and couldn't handle the characters because they truly were obnoxious, with Norrell being pompous and secretive about his magic and Strange just being annoying and selfish. But then I thought I'd give the book a chance eventually. Glad that's now out of the window. If the characters in the book are anything like the ones in the series (and from what you say, they sound very similar), I would not touch the book with a ten-foot pole.

Glad I didn't go with the buddy read of this last summer. I'll give it a try eventually but so many books are ahead of it at the moment.

I think the book suffers more from its reference to a " 'Ye old" writing style in opposition to modern sensibilities than anything else. It's a sort of fantasy attempt at a Jane Austin-ish style (and I have to say, I quite dislike her dull to the point of being infuriating novels, truth be told). I did like this book, didn't love it (cause it's also quite dull at times), but didn't dislike it for the flaws on the characters. On the contrary, nowadays we're bombarded left and right with the "righteous" hero/antihero. Villains no longer exist, because if they're "hot", they're "just misunderstood", and if antiheroes are flawed on an emotional level, they are sympathetic. Why should a main character always be sympathetic, though? In my opinion, that's kinda boring. If a protagonist is selfish and self-absorbed for the heck of it, they get a lot of hate a-la Atlas Shrugged. I don't really understand why, though; that's the way people are, and historically, people have always been. Particularly in the day and age this book takes place. Not every villain is scarred, hot and sympathetic, not every hero is idealistic, brave and selfless. Not every character should adhere to our moral compasses (mine being kinda broken, if I'm perfectly honest :v ). Like I said, I had more issues with the style in which the book is written than with its actual content, though I'll have to say I did enjoy the TV adaptation a whole lot more for once; makes it run smoother. All and all, I'd give it a 3.5/5, particularly for those dreadfully long and oftentimes uninformative footnotes, and the many overly extended descriptions which made me feel I was reading Winter's Tale by Mark Helprin all over again. The story itself is solid, though, and the characters do belong in the grim (if black humor-ish) atmosphere it builds. Liked, not loved.

Oh it's not just me! I'm about 200 pages in and I'm finding it really hard work - in fact I put the book down a couple of months ago and I have no motivation to pick it back up again.

Just finished this book today and honestly really disliked it. I can’t believe how overwhelmingly positive the reviews are, but I guess I’m just missing something!

I'm 11% into this and I think it's a disaster and I'm about to DNF it. I'm glad I'm not alone in not liking it 😄

I’m about 14 chapters in and I’m struggling 😬

I don't feel so bad now for not picking this up when the ebook version was recently on sale for 99p I know my limits!

I think the way to read this is to imagine that this is one of those dull books about magic that Norrell is always quoting from. I liked the excessive detail and footnotes, I think they really dramatised the dry and dusty world where dry and dusty books are the magic themselves. I have to say, Norrell was also my favourite character. He was a shy, weird little man who is forced by Childermass, Drawlight and Lascelles into situations that he may have had the magical ability to deal with but none of the social.

I remember getting this for Christmas the year it came out and being really excited for it. The edition I received was a three volume box set. I slogged through the first book and just never read the other two.

I have just finished reading this and I watched two reviews after making my own video. Yet to publish. It seems we all agree. Which is nice.

I did not know the Bechdel test and European pretentiousness were still factors for reading books. Thanks for saving me some time.

NO, NO, NO!!! It SUCKS! 😣😫🤢 Just finished it out of stubbornness. It has ZERO Character Development. Cardboard, no PLASTIC characters and the author worked very very hard to keep it BORING. It just drivels and slimes on and on and on like the slowest turd. And it's full of USELESS DETAILS. Most of the details are WASTED. The author probably signed a demonic contract to WASTE YOUR TIME. The most unbelievable thing is that the married characters show NOT a SPLINTER of AFFECTION. Nothing. Not even after a scare or long unwanted separation. As if they don't even want to hug or hold hands. This book must be the MOST FRIGID piece of literature on earth. Avoid or try at your own risk. It's a SLEEPING PILL. I returned the book, first time in years. PSNothing about the "main ingredient" of the story is explained. It just happens. And the end is anticlimactic. Like your grocery shopping list.

Books that are hyped are always a disappointment. I somehow avoided the hype in this case and so approached the book with no expectations and was blown away. Easily one of my favourite books!

I also didnt like this book. I didnt hate it but it was really frustrating to slog through it only to get to that ending. I must say i thought the book got better in the second half but i know i wouldnt recommend it either. Its refreshing to see someone with a similar opinion! those footbotes!

It's a relief to hear someone else say they don't like this book! I read it not long after it first came out. It was sooo popular. Mainstream popular when fantasy was still something that was typically looked down upon. It sounded like something I would love (Jane Austen with magic!), but no. I still don't get it. Honestly, this seems like the perfect recipe for a book that wouldn't be popular.

I skipped the book and watched the miniseries. Hated that even. Overall, it was just a very slow story and quite boring!! Probably throw the book out the window.

I agree this book sucks can't believe she got published by bloomsbury