Content warnings for this post: anti-semitism, anti-ginger prejudice, historical context warning, cultural sensitivity warning FYI: There are spoilers for both Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell and Piranesi ahead. I will mark it so that you may read this post and hopefully avoid them still.

I wanted to leave some of my thoughts here, but mostly questions. I came to this book after Piranesi, which was an enjoyable read overall, but I left the book feeling a little unsatisfied. SPOILERS The premise hinged on an imprisoned black man, and I came away unsure that Clarke was as intentional as she could have been, bringing this powerful imagery to bear. END

I jumped into Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell and was enjoying it very much! I didn’t mind the dry prose, elaborate footnotes, or slow but endearing pacing as some do. But ultimately, I had to put the book down. It was eating away at my spirit, and it took some time to identify why.

SPOILERS “It is also true that his hair had a reddish tinge and, as everybody knows, no one with red hair can ever truly be said to be handsome.”

“He is as rich as a Jew.”

“The air was much fresher - like air that had never been breathed before.” (This comment is made in reference to the U.S., when Strange magically transports the army to evade an attack.) END

The book is written like historical fiction, and the unnamed narrator is someone who is a contemporary of Strange and Norrell. Consequently, we are subject to the prejudices of various characters and the narrator from time to time, and it really wore me down. To be clear, I don’t think Clarke endorses any of these sentiments, and she makes it evident that most of the folks in the book are not to be admired. At the same time, as is sometimes the case with violence in books, these comments didn’t feel narratively justified, and instead alienated me as a reader.

Questions Taking it as a given that representation isn’t necessarily endorsement, does including historically accurate but culturally insensitive dialogue serve the narrative here?

What are we to learn, or what themes are we exploring, when we grant magic to colonizers, as opposed to the usual fantasy trope of endowing the disenfranchised with power?

Can a White English author effectively satirize White English colonists of this time? If so, is this an example of that?

My Thoughts As a person of color, this book missed the mark. Compare that with recent reads from Jeff Vandermeer, Annihilation and Authority. It seemed to me that Vandermeer, though a White man, understood aspects of how white supremacy and colonial thinking function, sometimes almost invisibly in the fabric of our society. I learned something of how whiteness functions while reading Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell, but I don’t think that was Clarke’s intention.

I’m genuinely excited to hear other perspectives, so thank you in advance for commenting! These books are beloved by several people in my life, and I’d love to understand more about it while at the same time applying a critical eye.

Special thanks to my gf & bf for helping me write this post; I couldn’t have organized my thoughts without them