The Hugos suck

[jeregenest]

So Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell by Susanna Clarke won a Hugo. I guess that’s not a surprise given the hype this book got and the way many point out to her Austen like language. Leaving aside the issue if that’s desirable to write in a style from two centuries ago, my major complaint is that while she has the technical side of the language down she is lacking the soul. Yes her language can be intoxicating, but there is not a single scene in the first 400 pages that doesn’t demand to be trimmed, and most need to be trimmed vigorously. Very few scenes in the first 400 pages do anything to advance a story and the author often seems unsure and unable to do that. Clarke’s use of Austen is a crutch to her story and while it can be beautiful it is oftentimes empty of meaning. Austen was a brilliant teller of story and Clarke often forgets she’s telling one.

And then there are the woman characters, or the lack of woman (and minority). Really all they are treasures to be saved and redeemed by men, white men to be exact. White whiny men.

And I shudder at the fear that this is the first in a trilogy.

Yet again a good indication that the Hugos are not a good award to base my reading list off.

Comments

[mgrasso.livejournal.com]

It's funny; the same things that you look at one way and hate about the book are the same things that I look at yet another way and love about it.

On my first read, the first 200 or so pages seemed very slow. But on a re-read I found all sorts of things that were important later in the story that just sort of slipped by my radar the first time.

I love the language and storytelling style, and I think, for instance, the footnote digressions are one of the most charming things about the whole book.

Regarding women and minorities: again, putting in mind the fact it is told in a style fitting the historical era, I do like the portrayals of Arabella and Stephen. If you look at the enslavement of Lady Pole, Arabella and Stephen by the gentleman with the thistle-down hair as a metaphor for the white males of the era's attitudes towards women and non-Europeans (Stephen-as-king just now makes me think of the Noble Savage archetype, which was becoming popular at right around this point in history, yes?) you have something interesting to see. Do they rescue themselves? Well, not exactly, but Stephen is shown, despite his enchantment, to be a very intelligent sort who comes to understand the ethos of faerie (and use it to stave off the gentleman's more excessive desires) quite rapidly.

Hmm. I could go on, but I just re-read it, so I'm full of ideas. :)

[jeregenest.livejournal.com]

hello Austen, strong women characters who DO things.

Clarke, 1-dimensional woman characters who don't do anything.

So its not period, its a cop-out and a major weakness in the books.

[mgrasso.livejournal.com]

Not to be excessively pedantic, but nominally, Austen's books are mostly about women. This book's about magicians, who, at least as the book opens, are all men. Which may be a cop-out, but is also at least a little bit interesting to think about.

[jeregenest.livejournal.com]

Too bad the magicians don't do much either.

The book is clever but its not good. Unfortunately this is a genre that cannot discriminate between clever and good.

Clarke may improve as an author but only if she is able to avoid the hype of her own publisher.

[heron61.livejournal.com]

I can't comment at all about this book because I have not read it. However, your comment, "Too bad the magicians don't do much either." struck me as interesting. Far too much recent best-selling genre fiction (the Harry Potter books being an excellent example) all shares a single major flaw - the protagonists are exceptionally passive. They almost never act on their own initiative, at best, they react or do what someone else tells them to do. From my PoV, this makes for exceptionally weak and limited books.

[kniedzw.livejournal.com]

I found it enjoyable as well, but I didn't really read the other nominees, so I can't really address their comparative merits. That said, I share your like of the style, and the way in which Clarke portrays Faerie.

In general, though, I agree with Jere that the Hugos aren't exactly the best award in the world, simply because the ballot is open to the public. I tend to prefer the Nebulas.

[ezrael.livejournal.com]

I'll take heart in the fact that I will never, ever win an award. :)

[shiffer.livejournal.com]

It couldn't possibly be as bad as Hominids (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0765345005/qid=1123778890/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/102-1296986-7088113). That's when I gave up the Hugos.

So... pass on this one, you say?

[princeofcairo.livejournal.com]

For what it's worth, it's apparently not (http://www.longstoryshortpier.com/vaults/2004/11/28/magic_tricks) the first in a trilogy. John Clute seems to have made that up out of his own head.

[jeregenest.livejournal.com]

Thats good to ehar thugh I really expect a sequel.

[peaseblossom.livejournal.com]

Jere, honey, you are nothing if not predictable. You already made everybody aware of your feelings about the book when it came out and you read it (well, except for the bits in there that were cribbed from *my* review of the book).

[jeregenest.livejournal.com]

Thats me, predictible.

[wiredhound.livejournal.com]

I agree, this book desperately needed editing, especially in the beginning. I was surprised to find the author was an editor, not surprised to find her magnum opus was many years in the writing.