Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell
discussion
Anyone read J.S. & M.N. _and_ The Night Circus ?
date
newest »
newest »
I enjoyed both of these books for different reasons. Although JS&MN is much more developed of a world, the Night Circus works as a love story as the primary thread. To compare them as similar works is a disservice, as they are coming from different seeds of thought and writers intentions.
have read both of these and enjoyed them both - found JS&MN had a better plot than Night Circus which was more basic. Don't think of Night Circus as being linked with Harry P at all though.
I enjoyed both these books very much, but honestly I would not compare them.Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell was honestly a book full of all sorts of social commentary on the state of literature. Clarke says as much herself. The Night Circus, in my opinion, was was lovely novel to be enjoyed casually and at face value. Not the same depth there.
These two books served completely different purposes. Also, I simply think it's in poor taste to run around labeling anything with magical elements to be riding the coat tails of Harry Potter.
That was kind of my thing with the Night Circus...tempting but no.I never read so I can't really say but I sensed from the descriptions I saw there was not as much depth. Heard it was more about the shallowish love story...lost interest there.
Wouldn't call the love story shallowish (as if love ever was), but yes, it does take center stage.
I also loved both books, however I never put them in the same category. Nor did I compare them to Harry Potter. Yes, they skirt the same genre but each goes in their own direction. The Night Circus was lovely to read and I recommended it to many friends but I feel it could have gone much deeper.....so many characters to explore.
I enjoyed both books immensely and don't think either has any resemblence to the Harry Potter books, which I also enjoyed very much. There is some relationship between the two, as the protagnists do compete at some level in both. However, the differences are far greater than the similarities, which makes finding common threads difficult. For example, the magicians in JS&MN seem to be praticing the same type of magic, and JS turns out to be the better magician while Mario and Celia (and their teachers) are drawing their magic from different places and both seem equally talented. I didn't think of Night Circus as a love story, although there were love stories in it. I think of Night Circus as the building and protection of an amazing product of magic -- a place of enchantment.
I am now reading The Night Circus and so far it strikes me as fan fiction of a Norrell/Strange admirer.
I've read and enjoyed all three (HP, Night Circus, JS&MN). I don't think it's fair to say that either of the others are riding on the waves of Harry Potter. They're excellent books in their own right.I don't really get the disparagement of The Night Circus, either. I enjoyed it so much. I think maybe even more than JS&MN. They're quite different styles of book, although they have some similarities of setting. That doesn't mean that the shorter (and less dry) of the two is "fan fiction" of the other. I read a lot of books set in medieval fantasy worlds, books with elves, books with epic quests against evil. I don't think they're all fanfiction of LOTR just because they're in a similar setting. See what I'm saying?
Dear Gwen,A valid point, although the first of these Elvish fantasy books might arguably be called fan fiction, though. After that it became a genre. Perhaps the same might happen here. The thing here, however, is that Morgenstern herself said she was influenced. The Night Circus falls a bit flat as a book. There is little to no character development, there is not much in the way of plot development and the magic basically isn't fantastic. There is too much stock and cliché material and when you come down to it, nothing very imaginative in the entirety of the circus. Or, no, the clock. The clock was good. But then that wasn't magic.
Norrel & Strange is drier, admittedly. The magic there is also without spark, but it serves the style of the book. There is the opposition of study and otherworldliness. The book succeeds in drawing another reality and does so with succesfull images and solid characters that you can like, loathe and pity at different times. Even the elf.
Ray wrote: "The thing here, however, is that Morgenstern herself said she was influenced."Well, every author draws on something that went before.
Tolkien was influenced by diverse mythology, that's not making it "fan fiction" or anything. I didn't however read the complete "Jonathan Strange" as I found the book to be too dry to my taste, so I can't really say how much overlap between this and "The Night Circus" there really is. Personally I would say just the opposite about the characters in "Jonathan Strange", other than with "The Night Circus" I felt that Clarke draws her characters to distant to really care for in any way.
Yes, the magic in "The Night Circus" isn't fantastic - it's often more realistic, practical, every day, which I would dare to say was the point to it.
I loved Jonathan Strange - 5 star rating I hated The Night Circus - 1 star rating
Of the Two I must say that Strange and Norell was by far my favorite but I enjoyed Night circus as well. especially the evocative and spell binding nature of the early parts of the book.
JS&MN was far more complex and interesting.The Night Circus was ok but for some reason I wasn't a great fan, I found it difficult to choose a character to root for and that's what dimmed my enthusiasm.
Enjoyed both - but JS to me is just on another level. that's an epic book (could have been broken into 2 or 3 books, really). JS reminds me a lot of books written in the 19th century - the long, detailed progression, with a slower pace than a lot of modern novels. But for me that worked incredibly well as it added to the entire alternate-history experience. The Night Circus is weakly plotted, but I found the imagery powerful. I still have some of the images from those circus tents floating around in my mind. Not all books will emphasize the same aspect of storytelling - Night Circus was perhaps a bit more "literary" (not better, just more like that genre), in that it de-emphasizes plot and heavily emphasizes imagery. That won't float everyone's boat, but I liked it.
I liked Night Circus so much better than JS! Night Circus is all about the imagery, it's just beautiful. JS to me was just too dry and long. I felt like she could have cut out about 350 pages and not have affected the story what so ever.
I felt exactly the same way Vanessa....loved The Night Circus nd 'dry' is an excellent way to describe how I felt about JS & MN.
Read them both, loved them both. I liked Jonathan Strange a good bit more- it haunted my dreams, transformed my world into Fairie, I even assigned it to my students (your welcome, Suzanna Clarke). I was not so besotted with Night Circus. It was fun, imaginative, and kept me turning pages; but it wasn't the life-altering event Jonathan Strange was.
I absolutely adore both books. They are very different, but they both have the beautiful writing and wonderful atmosphere that most of today's literature lacks!
Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell was honestly a book full of all sorts of social commentary on the state of literature."That's intriguing, where can I learn more about that?
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
I'm writing a research paper about the two . Basically reviewing Night Circus as riding the Harry Potter wave... but not amazing.
I love Jonathan Strange, though, like crazy. Night Circus author idolized it, too, apparently, fr/ interviews. Borrowed a few plot devices -- I think interesting:
Two magicians; Friends-of-English Magic like The Reveurs; The End (black pillar vs. trapped in tree); Chandresh shooting A.H. like Lady Pole shooting Norrell... Am I missing anything ?