Talk:Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

moved from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English

Not sure of the language, looks maybe Indonesian or something? —Stormie 07:13, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

There seems to be a new stub developing at Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell (note Mr. rather than Mr) --Henrygb 21:34, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• • It's Malay - Fiveless 14:43, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

(end moved text)

Taking the liberty of moving this text to the talk page of the corresponding English-language article and making this a redirect. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:02, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

The following material was copied from the article's talk page at Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell:

For what it's worth, this content (in Malay, according to Fiveless) was pasted into Jonathan_Strange_&_Mr_Norrell. That will be turned into a redirect, but if anyone can read Malay, there may be something useful here. Or something worth putting in the Malay Wikipedia. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:00, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

JONATHAN STRANGE & Mr NORRELL

Penulis: Susanna Clarke Penerbit: Bloomsburry

Buku ini betul-betul tentang magic dan magicians. Dengan baca buku ini, kita serasa jadi tahu bagaimana magicians sebenarnya, as human beings, gitu deh. Settingnya di Inggris pada abad 19. Tokoh utamanya ada dua: Mr Norrell dan Jonathan Strange. Karakter mereka menarik. Misalnya Mr Norrell: biarpun dia jago sihir, tapi penampilannya biasa saja, orangnya juga penggugup. Orang-orang sampai sering salah kira dia dengan pembantunya yang memang berpenampilan sesuai gambaran awam tentang magician: tall, dark, and handsome.

Nah, ceritanya sihir sudah dua ratus tahun lenyap dari Inggris. Mr Norrell prihatin banget, makanya dia mau mengangkat Jonathan Strange jadi muridnya. Oya, menurut buku ini, magician sejenis occupation yang bisa dipelajari, istilahnya scholar magician. Dari sini, barulah ada perkembangan: kalau orang itu memang berbakat, dia akan punya kekuatan untuk membuat spells dia ampuh. Kalau nggak, dia terbatas jadi scholar magician biasa.

Strange sendiri digambarkan manusiawi juga. Dia takut mikirin reaksi pacarnya kalau tahu dia mau jadi penyihir saja, bukan pekerjaan lain yang lebih menguntungkan, businessman, misalnya. Terus, dia juga bisa kesal pada Mr Norrell yang gak mau meminjami dia buku-buku di perpustakaannya yang super komplet.

Selain itu, buku ini juga lucu. Waktu Norrell mau membantu Inggris berperang melawan Prancis, dia menyihir patung di kapal Prancis yg ditangkap Inggris supaya bisa bicara tentang posisi kapal-kapal Prancis lain. Tapi ternyata karena hidup di antara pelaut, patung itu waktu bisa ngomong malah cuma memaki-maki ala pelaut.

Strange membantu Inggris berperang di Portugal dengan menurunkan hujan deras, membuat jalan sehingga bisa dilalui tentara Inggris, bahkan menghidupkan mayat! Selain itu, dia bisa juga memindahkan kota. Tapi belakangan Portugal komplain: kalau terus dipindah-pindah, lama-lama peta wilayah negara mereka jadi tidak keruan dong!

Oya, dengan baca buku ini kita juga jadi tahu soal fairy. Di sini fairy digambarkan sebagai makhluk yang licik. Waktu Mr Norrell diminta menghidupkan wanita bangsawan yang meninggal karena sakit, ia minta bantuan fairy. Fairy itu menyanggupi, tapi dengan syarat setengah umur wanita itu harus diserahkan padanya. Mr Norrell mengira setengah umur itu diambil belakangan, tapi ternyata si fairy tiap malam menculik wanita itu ke kerajaannya. Akibatnya, wanita itu cuma “hidup” di siang hari. Kalau malam, dia tampak duduk bengong saja, karena sebetulnya jiwanya berada di kerajaan fairy.

"Tantangan" buku ini: tebal halamannya yang dahsyat, 800 halaman, dengan huruf yang kecil-kecil pula. Terus, bahasa Inggris-nya kelas kakap. Membaca buku ini serasa membaca novel klasik kayak karya Bronte. Juga, buku ini di awal agak lambat, tapi cuma sebentar kok. Begitu sudah bisa "masuk" ke jiwa buku ini, langsung terasa seru, unputdownable. Yang seru juga: buku ini diterbitkan dalam dua versi: hitam dan putih.

Criticism

I found it surprising that the novel has been accused of chauvinism, which I assume "male chauvinism" is meant. While none of the women in the novel are central characters, the principal men are shown to be blind, arrogant, fearful, and foolish. If Jonathan Strange is the protagonist, he is hardly the hero. In many ways, the novel is a work of feminism: showing dramatically the suffering of women who are unempowered, segregated, and frequently treated as if they were ill. -Acjelen 22:11, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I think that calling the book feminist is a bit too harsh. While the men have negative qualities they have many positive ones too. Take Stramge, in addition to arrogence and obsessiveness he is also a genius, very brave, a loving husband and quite willing to endure hardship. Its true that the women are portraed a bit more favourably but most charachters are quite one sided, Strange and Norell are the ones with enough screentime to actually be portrayed deeply.

I believe that the criticism section is really simplistic. To complain that a story could've been told in half as many pages is really absurd. The Lord of The Rings, for instance, could be a 200 pages book if you skipped all the references to the history of the Middle Earth. Description, atmosphere and in general the attention to details are all highly valuable literary elements, which in this novel required some extension. Complains to that effect are clearly coming, in my humble opinion, from people who are used to the most comercial and simple type of fantasy novels.

The other criticism, that of chauvinism, is clearly coming for people who don't have the slightest notions of irony, sarcasm, and social satire. It is really a sign of poor reading comprehension to pretend that all the "chauvinistic" and in general all the discriminaroty remarks of the book are to be taken literally. The book is highly satirical.

The only thing I see in this criticisms are a clash between the quality of the novel and some of its intended target audience's preferences. The only criticism that I believe has some fundamentation(although I do not agree with it, but still, seems valid) is that of the abrupt resolution of the conflict. That at least seems to have some sense.DifferentSmoke 13:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

criticism: length

First and foremost, the story could have easily been told in half as many pages. Amusing :) The page count could have been halved merely by using single-spacing rather than double, at least in the UK paperback. -- Jon Dowland 17:45, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Article Name

Given that the book is actually titled "... Mr Norrell" rather than "... Mr. Norrell" (note the lack of the period) in all editions, wouldn't it make more sense to have the article at "... Mr Norrell" and the redirect to the other form? If no one objects, I'll make this change soon. Brendan 06:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

End copied material

Spelling

Connexion is also a modern spelling, so I'm removing it from the part about "spellings of the time period." Akulaalfa 04:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

No it's not. From the Oxford English Dictionary:

The etymological spelling connexion is the original in Eng.; in 17th c. it was supported by the verb CONNEX; after the latter was displaced by CONNECT, the n. began c 1725-50 to be often spelt connection, a spelling which, under the influence of etymologically-formed words, such as affection, collection, direction, inspection (all f. L. ppl. stems in -ect-), is now very frequent.

I guess (but may be wrong) that connexion is widely used today in US English, but in British English connection is virtually the only form used. Since the book is English and is based in England, the word connexion is indeed being used archaically. Will add back to list.Chris 09:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

"Connexion" is not used in American English. The spelling belongs on the archaism list.Trinite 13:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Criticism, lack of citations

The criticism section looks remarkably like original research to me. I have added "citation needed"s as appropriate, but probably the whole section should be deleted. —Ashley Y 09:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject

Am I the only one who thinks JS&MN seriously needs a Wikiproject?12.76.68.255 21:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe not a Wikiproject but a greater appreciation wouldn't go amiss, esp. of the plot and the history of the period.

I've started one at http://hurtfew.wikispaces.com, but I really haven't done anything yet. Feel free to contribute.Manicwhale (talk) 15:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Plot Summary?

Would it be appropriate/a good idea to include a plot summary on the page?

Pity Me

Is this actually a reference to the village? I thought of it when I read the book, and it seems reasonable to guess it must be, with her coming from County Durham - but are there any sources which prove this? --Robdurbar 21:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know of any, which is why I phrased the trivia point the way I did. -- Jon Dowland 20:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

There is indeed a village called Pity-Me, but Clarke has said that it is not a reference to the real village.

Bemusedly

Is used incorrectly in regard to Arabella Strange:

"Arabella Strange. The wife of Jonathan Strange. Proud of her husband and bemusedly tolerant of his idiosyncrasies."

I believe the author of the article meant "wryly" or "ironically." "Bemused" means confused, confounded.

This is nit-piking. I thought the article was very well written.

characters/historical figures

These sections take up a large bulk of the article. I think the former section can be condensed, especially if a plot summary is added, but the latter does seem to be useful. It's just so long. I may have a crack at trying to condense it, or possibly move the list to it's own article. -- Jon Dowland 22:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)