Susanna Clarke's Strange (and Norrell)

I finally finished Susanna Clarke's Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell last night--at 750+ pages (in hardback), it's not for the faint of heart. I've been reading it with several smaller books orbiting around it, as it were, for over a month. I confess I tend to be intimidated by very long books--not because I think they're too hard, but because I'm afraid if they turn out to be terrific and I can't put them down, I'll get myself into a mess not getting my other work done. I suffer from guilt every time I read for fun because I'm not working, grading, or doing laundry or housework, so it's hard to commit to a large book sometimes.

JS & MN was a delight, however. It's set in the early nineteenth century, during the Regency, and it mimics the diffuse style of the time--without ever getting to the point of irritating a modern reader. It probably wouldn't be to everyone's taste, but if you even think you can handle that style of writing, and you don't detest anything that smacks of fantasy fiction, it's worth a go. The premise of the book is that during the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, magic actually worked, but it is lost so that the study of it becomes purely historical / theoretical. However, one person--Mr Norrell--learns to be a practical magician, and about one-third of the way through the book, he takes on a student, Jonathan Strange. I have to say the book is slow going until Strange shows up, but after that it's a fairly smooth read. Clarke's depiction of some of the historical characters of the time is a large part of what makes the book fun (as with most historical or alternative-historical novels, there's a lot of pleasure in recognizing historical characters and enjoying what the author does with them), especially in the brief appearance of a certain famous poet whose character she nails perfectly.

The book is stylistically remarkable for its footnotes, many of them little gems of short-short stories themselves. They're also excellent pastiches of the sorts of notes one would find in scholarly works from the time period, as several reviewers have pointed out (the web site linked to above has a whole host of reviews).

I wonder why my conception of any cuisine before the 20th century seems to be limited to roast meats and stews? I do, in fact, know better. At any rate, I think a few slices of good roast beef (I usually make a pot roast with garlic and red wine seasoned with thyme, rosemary, marjoram, and a bay leaf) between uneven slabs of chewy bread would be a good accompaniment to this book, with cheddar cheese (or, better yet, Wensleydale cheese if you can find it) and whatever other sandwich fillings you have on hand. Say what you like about English cooking, this is the nation that reportedly invented the sandwich, and they have perfected it. I enjoyed English food when I was there a few summers ago--any place where you can get Indian-spiced chicken for your sandwich is OK by me. I still think fondly of the little deli in Helmsley, Yorks. that had the most amazingly good coronation chicken sandwich.

Got a comment about JS &MN, sandwiches, or roasted meats? Leave one for us below!