Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell - and final participation

Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell - which I first encountered in 2015 - has become one of just a handful of books in my life that I am almost-continually re-reading. I find it fascinating and delightful, genuinely wise and deeply witty. 

Perhaps this is because it is set in that era around 1800 when  - by my understanding of the development of Man's consciousness - a wrong path was taken. By my way of reading; Strange and Norrell sketches-out what might have happened had Englishmen begun upon the right path - that path towards Final Participation.  

The Raven King is eventually seen as the author and stage manager of the events of S&N - and the guide towards Final Participation that neither Strange nor Norrell can see. 

By 1800, Modern man was alienated (the Age of Reason/ Enlightenment) and in need of healing. Magic is participation - it is the healing of the modern rift between Man and God, Man and nature and between Man and his real, spiritual, divine self.

By contrast with the Raven King; neither Strange nor Norrell are Christian - so on those grounds alone, it can be seen that their ideas are incomplete and distorted. 

Norrell seeks what might be termed a late Medieval, scholastic answer (Steiner's Intellectual Soul) - an attempted re-integration by books and study, by quasi-scientific rituals - calmly, gentlemanly, in a way socially-acceptable. (A Temenos Academy approach!). 

He intends to exclude belif-in, and interaction-with, fairies (and the Raven King) from his magical system - and yet all the magic he does is in fact indirectly dependent on that source but in an unconscious, and indeed dishonestly denied, fashion. 

Strange yearns towards a magic (and spirituality) that is instinctive and spontaneous (unsystematic) - where Men and fairies work together, and Man is (like the fairies) so immersed in nature as to be unable fully to detach himself. 

Where Norrell is the proto-scientific, scholarly, ritual magician; Strange harks back to the Shaman (and shares the Shaman's charisma). He represents the 'Romantic reaction' - and becomes friends with Byron (with whom he shares some attributes). 

This is the yearning for that earlier developmental phase called Original Participation; which, if effective, would lead to a reversal of the conscious, autonomous, deliberately chosen mode of thinking: Men would become (more like fairies) childlike again - ultimately un-conscious. 

By his behind-the-scenes activities; the Raven King ensures that magic is restored to England; but in the process, both Strange and Norrell are removed - along with nearly all the books of magic. 

At the end of the novel; magic is more widely available than ever before; but each Man must find his own way to it. The new magicians may call themselves Strange-ites or Norrell-ites, but each magician has made that personal choice, and each must choose and navigate his own path into magic (which is participation). 

Strange and Norrell ends, therefore, is a hope-full way; with the new generation of magicians representing a start at the great task of moving towards Man's next, destined development of consciousness. Ritual magic and Shamanic magic are being left-behind; and the new magic is not given a name - but it can be recognized as essentially the exact same thing as Barfield's Final Participation; or what I term Romantic Christianity.

Christianity is always in the background of Strange and Norrell; but the hopeful ending implies a Christian faith in the resurrected life eternal, or else any 'positive' outcome would be merely therapeutic and utilitarian. 'Magic' is romanticism in S&N - specifically, the 'romantic' conscious and chosen awakening of direct and experiential Christianity; as our only possible - as well as most desirable, joyous - destiny.  

The wrong choice of Gilbert Norrell - the crucial plot point in Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell

The main plot crux of Susanna Clarke's novel Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell is to be found in the chapter entitled "A gentleman with thistledown hair", in which Norrell becomes the first English magician to summon a fairy and ask for his assistance for perhaps four hundred years.

Norrell is an extremely dishonest magician, and (despite doing exactly this) consistently argues (in public and even with Jonathan Strange) against the practice of magicians contacting fairies - because of the dangers; and this warning superficially seems to be amply justified by the subsequent events.

Nonetheless, it also becomes clear that all magic ultimately comes from fairies - and that even Norrell's own magic, which he believes himself to have learned entirely from books, has been tacitly permitted, and indeed encouraged, from Faerie by the Raven King.

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/the-restoration-of-english-magic-re.html

So, I think we must assume that it was, in principle, alright for Norrell to enlist the assistance of a fairy - if, let us say, the thing was done for the right reasons and in the right way. But that in fact there was something about the way this fairy was enlisted by Norrell which led to many bad outcomes - the actual summoning was (we can infer) done for the wrong reasons and in the wrong ways.

Firstly, Norrell enlisted the fairy primarily for his own self-aggrandizement - in order to impress the prominent politician Sir Walter Pole by raising his recently-dead fiancee, and thereby putting Sir Walter into Norrell's debt. Norrell justifies this to himself by pretending the action was for the benefit of restoring 'English magic', but in practice Norrell always interprets 'English magic' purely in terms of himself and his own benefit; and he does his best to prevent or suppress all other aspects of English magic.

So first the motive was wrong. What, then, about the specific fairy who was summoned: the 'gentleman with thistledown hair'? At first glance he seems to be the worst possible fairy that Norrell could have summoned - however it seems that Norrell had no control over this, and I think we must assume that the Raven King was behind the choice.

The thistledown fairy has, indeed, many desirable qualities, some of which he tells us (and seem to be confirmed) and others which emerge through the story. Firstly, he is a King and is perhaps the most magically powerful fairy alive; and secondly he has been the servant and friend of some of the greatest magicians England has ever known: primarily the Raven King himself, but also the Golden Age ('aureate') magicians Thomas Godbless, Ralph Stokesy and Martin Pale.

Although there is considerable evidence that this fairy has become corrupted over the past few hundred years, and is now a monster of cruelty and conceit, I think that we would be justified in assuming that if Norrell's motives had been good and if Norrell's decisions had been wise and altruistic, this fairy would have been suitable.

The crucial moment comes when the 'bargain' is being settled between Norrell and the fairy - when the fairy asks: "Should I agree to restore this young woman to life, what would be my reward?"

Norrell asks what the fairy wants, and the response is: "to be allowed to aid you in all your endeavors, to advise you upon all matters and to guide you in your studies. Oh, and you must take care to let all the world know that your greatest achievements are due to larger part to me!"

This seems not unreasonable, and would seem to be the normal way in which fairies have worked with magicians in the past - they are apparently a conceited race and love nothing more than frequent praise and honours; but have been content to be led strategically and ruled by Men, who are more diligent than they.

However, Norrell rejects this request for selfish, egotistical reasons, without consideration; this, because he wishes to be given personal credit for all magic, and does not want to share status or praise with anybody - least of all with a fairy.

This refusal provokes 'a long silence' and then the fairy declares 'this is ungrateful indeed' - and eventually suggests a deceptive 'deal' where he claims 'half' of Lady Pole's new life - which Norrell simply understands to mean her lifespan being shortened by half; but which the fairy interprets to mean absolute control over half of each and every day of Lady Pole's life.

(For half of every day for an agreed ninety-four years, during the nights, Lady Pole is therefore compelled to be the fairy's companion in fairyland; engaged in repetitive and tedious dances, rituals and ceremonies - until she comes to regard her inescapable fate as literally worse than being dead.)

What has happened is that instead of Norrell himself paying the 'price' for the fairy's cooperation, he makes Lady Pole pay the price - whether she likes it or not. This is the essence of Norrell's wicked action.

So - I think we can locate Norrell's refusal of the fairy's first offer as the critical turning point in the plot of the book, since it leads to the enchantments of Lady Pole, Stephen Black and Arabella Strange - and to the fixed hostility of the fairy towards both Norrell and Strange (leading to their own bleak personal fates as co-prisoners bound in darkness).

In sum: it was necessary to the restoration of English magic that a fairy be summoned, and it was probably right that that particular fairy be the gentleman with thistledown hair; but most of the tragedies of the story stem from Norrell's selfishly bad motivations in summoning the fairy and his selfishly bad decision with respect to making a deal with the fairy.

What is High Fantasy in a novel - disagreeing with Neil Gaiman about Strange and Norrrell

*
Tolkien's Lord of the Rings is the benchmark for adult High Fantasy, and its mark is seriousness and realism about the world depicted.

In other words, pure High Fantasy must not have the slightest hint, trace or taint of ironic detachment or allegory; certainly no parody or satire - that is absolutely fatal; nothing 'arch', no breaking the fourth wall, nothing post-modern; no nudge-nudge humour about the quaint ways or beliefs of the fantasy world...

Of course this means that many people will - and they do - hate High Fantasy, because they find it boring. And many other people read High Fantasy in the wrong spirit - they read it asif it was an allegory - they enjoy it only by subverting it.

By this test, examples of High Fantasy would include Lloyd Alexander's Prydain chronicles, Alan Garner's 'Weirdstone' and 'Gomrath' novels, and JK Rowling's Harry Potter series. It would also include Terry Pratchett's first three Tiffany Aching books.

Most of Fantasy literature is not High Fantasy by this test - for example most of Terry Pratchett's Discworld series is parodic and satirical in its humour. CS Lewis's Narnia books are not consistently High Fantasy either, because of elements of narrator commentary from a modern standpoint - for example, the mockery of Eustace Scrubb and his parents, or of progressive education. And Lewis's Space Trilogy is too allegorical to be High Fantasy.

But I suspect that this interpretation and distinction I am outlining is probably not universally accepted.

When I recently read Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell by Susanna Clarke, and looked at the reviews, I came across reference to S&N's endorsement by Neil Gaiman, and how he regarded S&N as the 'finest work of English fantasy' written over the previous seventy years.

I certainly agree with the Gaiman's insightful appreciation of S&N's quality

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=norrell

 - but I disagree with him about how to classify it.

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/may/02/neil-gaiman-why-i-love-jonathan-strange-and-mr-norrell

By 'seventy' years, Gaiman was referencing a novel called Lud-in-the-mist by Hope Mirlees published in 1926. On this basis, I went to to read  Mirlees's book, and found it both enjoyable and well written.

However, it was a qualitatively-different kind of book than Strange and Norrell. Lud-in-the-mist is not in the slightest degree believable; Lud is not about world-building or alternative reality - it is rather in the genre of a fin-de-siecle 'exquisite miniature' like Oscar Wilde's stories (e.g. the Selfish Giant). It is arch, satirical, self-consciously modern.

By contrast with Gaiman, I would regard Strange and Norrell as being in essentially the same category as The Lord of the Rings; for the seriousness, depth and realism of its alternative magical and fairy world. For the 'feel' of it.

There are also differences, but this similarity is the one by which I would choose to classify Strange and Norrell.

The thing is, S&N was marketed as a mainstream novel, not a fantasy - and the reviews and publicity focused on its pastiche literary style, as if it was a postmodern take on of Jane Austen - rather like John Fowles's once highly-rated The French Lieutenant’s Woman was a Victorian pastiche (and postmodern commentary).

But I would regard Strange and Norrell as true High Fantasy both in spirit and attainment; and I would therefore prefer if it had been marketed to the fantasy niche, and reviewed as such.

As such, I think S&N would have found more readers who took it with a seriousness appropriate to the book's scope, nature and ambition.

*

How does English Magic work in Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell?

Blogger "seriouslypleasedropit" has joined-together the textual clues, and came up with what seems like the true explanation (slightly edited):

The eponymous Mr. Norrell is a somewhat timid creature—a landed country squire, ever a bachelor, who likes nothing better than sitting in a corner reading a book, and is likely to describe anything that disturbs his study as “irregular.” Through years of study (and a near-limitless inheritance with which to buy books) he has reconstructed a system of magic which allows him to perform various feats. Norrell’s magic is effective, but wooden; he avoids risk, and is very concerned with magic’s reputation in Society, as it has hitherto been disreputable...

In contrast is the other protagonist of the book, Jonathan Strange, who, having devoured tales of the Old Magic, wants to duplicate (and improve upon!) those ancient feats, and is willing to consort with dangerous fairies to do so. ...

Mr. Norrell and Mr. Strange spend a good amount of dialogue... as they argue about what magic ought to be. Norrell wants it to be practical, controlled, systematic; Strange wants it to be wild, wondrous, and spirited. Norrell wants nothing to do with fairies; Strange knows that the greatest English magician ever, the “Raven King,” heavily consorted with them, and wants to follow in his footsteps.

The book is long, and much happens, but eventually Strange finds the secret of what magic is, at least within the world of the book: 

 “It is not so hard as we have supposed. Tell them to read what is written in the sky. Tell them to ask the rain! All of [the Raven King’]s old alliances are still in place. I am sending messengers to remind the stones and the sky and the rain of their ancient promises.”

The gist is: long ago, the Raven King, having learned from the fairies to speak to the stone, the trees, and water of England, made alliance with them on behalf of all English magicians. That was the source of the magic, and Norrell’s formulaic magic is akin to a child writing letters to distant servants in the hand of a long-dead father, thinking they are spells rather than messages.

Excellent! I would add that this also explains why, when the Raven King departed from Northern England about 1400, English magic faded and failed. The alliances he had made with the 'nature spirits' of England stopped being renewed and gradually lapsed. 

A note on Piranesi by Susanna Clarke (2020)

As may be recalled, I regard Susanna Clarke's Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell as my favourite novel written in the past... oh, fifty years or so. At any rate; I regard it as one of the very best novels I have ever read. And I have read it many times.   

When, after a gap of some fifteen years, SC published a new work; I felt I ought to read it, to give it a chance - even though I could see that it was not the same kind of thing as S&N... not at all. 

I read an extensive excerpt, and could see that Piranesi was written in something like the highly-wrought, formal-symbolic, style that was very fashionable in translations of foreign writers (and by foreign writers using English) some forty to sixty years ago. 

The prose of Piranesi demonstrated neither the confident fluidity and power, nor the sinuous wit, that made Strange and Norrell such a continuous delight. It might as well have been written by someone else altogether.  

Anyway; to overcome the perceived turgidity of style; in late 2020 I finally decided to tackle the audiobook version (which was well performed). 

The day afterwards; I wrote the following in an e-mail (somewhat edited):

My overall evaluation is that Piranesi is an 'interesting' short story that has been pumped-up into a 'novel' (or, at least, that attempt has been made). 

The whole thing fell to pieces at the end in an astonishing way, so terribly inept that I suspect it may have been written (largely) by someone else*. 

This corresponds with the moral collapse of the book from the sweet innocence of the early chapters, to the sordid references (and actuality) of the late ones. 

It seems obvious that the author had no idea how to finish the book, in any way, at any level - and it just dribbles off into nothing. 

I also listened to an audio podcast interview with Susanna Clark which is linked at the foot of this summary article in the Church Times - about her life since writing Strange and Norrell and the writing of Piranesi.  

It is rather sad altogether. Woman geniuses are apparently always precarious and vulnerable. 

Susanna Clarke must have been a genius when she wrote Strange and Norrell, but apparently is not any more. She seems now to be writing as therapy - at any rate, she is apparently not driven by an inner motivation. 

She has become a liberal artsy Anglican; but, as usual, such insipid pseudo-Christianity is doing no detectable good.

*Note: What I meant by this was that I guessed there had been a large editorial input; to the point of overwhelming the authorial voice. I deplore the modern practice - in the publishing of mainstream as well as genre fiction - of an author almost co-writing a book, as a de facto collaboration with editor/s, beta-readers and other advisors. I believe that this quasi-committee system of authorship diminishes whatever is distinctive about specific authors; and almost completely eliminates any possibility of genius-level work. 

The power of English Magic (from an interview with Susanna Clarke)

*

Edited from https://www.drake.org.uk/interviews/susanna-clarke-author-of-jonathan-strange-mr-norrell/

Question: You seem to specifically emphasize English magic throughout Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell. It is rarely, as I recall, just magic that is returning — it is English magic. Is English magic very different from that of other places? Did other nations lose their magic as England did, and if so, is it coming back? Can you do English magic if you aren’t in England, or is it tied to the land?

Susanna Clarke's answer: This is an important question and I’m ashamed to say that I didn’t give it a lot of thought until I was nearing the end of writing Strange and Norrell.

Yes, you can do English magic if you aren’t in England. We know this because Strange does magic in Portugal, Spain, Italy and Belgium (and for an hour or so in America). Nevertheless English magic is tied to the land.

Let me see if I can explain this apparent contradiction. Human magic is borrowed from fairies — and fairies don’t think of magic as we do, as if it were something special. From their point of view it’s just part of normal life.

If a fairy wants something he asks his friends — the Wind, the Rain, the Hills and the Stars etc. — to help him get it. English magicians developed magic — made it less fundamental, less natural, but ultimately they were drawing on the goodwill of the English Wind, the English Rain, the English Hills and those Stars that you can see from the Sussex Wolds or Birmingham or Carlisle. So English magic was like a conversation between the magicians and England.

The reason English magic is particularly strong is because of John Uskglass - The Raven King, a child stolen from England and taken to Faerie, where he learnt fairy magic and gained a fairy kingdom, before returning to England to gain an English kingdom. He then taught his magic to other humans.

This wasn’t so much because he was a generous sort of person — he’s not usually. It was more because he had two sorts of subjects — fairies and humans — and he saw that he needed to get them to bond, to become one people. Getting them to do magic together was a clever way to do this.

On the other hand, how English is English magic? As we’ve seen it comes from fairies. And John Uskglass didn’t think of himself as English — not at first anyway. He claimed to be Norman, which (if it were true) meant that his grandfather would have come over from Normandy with William the Conqueror. And in the 19th century Jonathan Strange’s mother was Scottish.

At the end of JS&MN there’s a footnote about a Scottish magician and Scottish magic. And Jennifer-Oksana’s is an Introduction to The Books of Caribbean Magic (2nd Edition): a fun piece of fan fiction crossing JS&MN with Pirates of the Caribbean. Other countries do have their own magics — I can’t see why they wouldn’t.

On the whole I suspect English magic has the edge because of Uskglass.

*

Strange and Norrell post-audiobook update

I have recently been blogging about the fantasy novel Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell by Susanna Clarke

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=norrell

The story so far is that I read it about three months ago and thought it was one of the best books I have ever read; but of course I had not re-read it.

So, over the past month I have been listening to the audiobook version - so this was the big test...

The verdict: Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell is one of the best books I have ever read.

I don't have anything critical to say about it - I just love this book.


Note: What amazes me is that such a good book has been written nowadays, and by somebody the same age as me. I didn't think it was possible - but it was.

BTW the Audiobook is excellent - although I would have preferred that the story was not interrupted by the footnotes (truly wonderful although the footnotes are). I think it may be possible to choose whether or not to have the foootnotes read-out during the story, or afterwards - if you have the CD audiobook - but I had a downloaded version which lacked this choice.  

Susanna Clarke's collection of short stories (The Ladies of Grace Adieu, 2006)

*
Having absolutely loved her novel, Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/review-of-jonathan-strange-and-mr.html

I immediately read Susanne Clarke's only other book: a collection of short stories called The Ladies Of Grace Adieu.

This was a very interesting experience, because the first story - from which the collection gets its title, was - in my opinion - a worthless piece of gimmickry. It is a contrived piece of early 19th century pastiche, like an exercise done for a writing class. In the collection, it was followed by the equally futile On Lickerish Hill which is Rumpelstiltskin done as a seventeenth century pastiche.  

This is interesting because the first story was published in 1996 and the second in 1997, which presumably suggests that the author was in her middle forties when she wrote them. If I had seen these stories at the time, given that the author was middle-aged, and she had asked for my advice; I would have told her to forget about writing a novel; because although she was technically skilled, she apparently had nothing to say.

It would seem unlikely that somebody at her time of life would somehow 'find her subject' and become consumed by it sufficiently to write a great and big novel.

But, of course, I would have been completely wrong! And it just goes to show... something or another.^

A year later she published Mrs Mabb which is extremely good, and just swept me along; and in 2000 she published Mr Simonelli, or The Fairy Widower which is even better. But by then she was at work on 'Strange and Norrell' and - apparently - put more than a decade into that single novel, which gave it the depth and reality that make it stand-out.

Something happened! Either she found her subject, and it took her over; or she was picked-out and visited by that genius whose inspiration enabled her to write Strange and Norrell - not for her benefit, but for ours.

*

^My English Literature MA supervisor had, earlier in his career, taught the Nobel Prize-winning poet Seamus Heaney at Queen's University, Belfast. The undergraduate Heaney had shown my supervisor some of his poems; and my supervisor had, apparently - legendarily, advised Heaney that he had no talent for poetry and should give-it-up.

I suppose the lesson concerning creative endeavors is something on the lines of Nobody Knows Anything - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Goldman
*

Hypothetical identification of Penlaw - the place where the Raven King's army first appeared in Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell

In the last months of 1110 a strange army appeared in Northern England. It was first heard of near a place called Penlaw some twenty or thirty miles north-west of Newcastle. No one could say where it had come from –it was generally supposed to be an invasion of Scots or Danes or perhaps even of French. By early December the army had taken Newcastle and Durham and was riding west. It came to Allendale, a small stone settlement that stands high among the hills of Northumbria, and camped one night on the edge of a moor outside the town.

From Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell by Susanna Clarke.


The intriguing thing about the name Penlaw is that is apparently just about the only invented place name in the 1000 odd pages of the novel:


https://hurtfew.wikispaces.com/Penlaw


As a resident of Newcastle and descendent of Northumbrians this piqued my curiosity. Since there is no such place as Penlaw 20-30 miles north-west of Newcastle I wondered whether it might be some kind of philological code.


Pen = the name of a female swan; Law is a dialect word for hill


Which gives us Swan Hill.


Swan Hill turns out to be the name of a farm cottage in Longhorsley, which is a village... 20-30 miles north-west of Newcastle.


http://www.zoopla.co.uk/property/swan-hill-cottage/longhorsley/morpeth/ne65-8rb/15838055


So my guess is that Susanna Clarke spent some time at Swan Hill farm or cottage at some point, and maybe that was where she had the idea of the Raven King's army, and decided to put it into the novel but in a 'pied' form (as a code or puzzle understandable by initiates only), or something...

The Restoration of English Magic (re: Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell)

Susanna Clarke's novel Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell (2004), as 'about' the restoration of English magic after a hiatus of some 200-400 years; and the underlying assumption of the story is that this restoration is 'a good thing'.

Yet on the surface magic seems to cause a great deal of trouble and doesn't really make all that much of a difference to national affairs. So why is restoring it a good idea?

This matter is not tackled explicitly in the text, so I need to make inferences.


First of all, what is English magic and where does it comes from?

Magic is the ability to use the 'elements' (stones, water, rain, earth, wind etc) in order to accomplish aims; and magic comes from fairies. Fairies can do magic naturally, because they spontaneously communicate with the elements and can make alliances with them - the elements will usually do what fairies ask of them.

Men can become magicians and do magic either by forming alliances with fairies or (more, or less, superficially) copying fairy magic. Men usually cannot communicate with the elements; so if they do not enlist the aid of fairies, men can only do magic indirectly by learning what fairies do, and (more, or less, effectively) copying them to compel the elements to cooperate in a rather limited fashion.


English magic - as a tradition - came from The Raven King (John Uskglass) who ruled the North of England circa 1100-1400 from his capital in Newcastle. After he departed from England there was an immediate loss of magical scope and power, then Men's ability to do magic gradually faded-away over the next few generations. During the same time, contact between Men and fairies ceased.

Uskglass was the greatest-ever magician because he was a Man who was stolen by fairies as a child, and (for reasons unknown) came to embody the strengths of both races.

His kingdom in Northern England included both Men and fairies. The Men had the advantages of enhanced power; the fairies were better ruled by Men than by themselves (fairies being excessively indolent, of modest intelligence and too fickle to be strategic) - and they would also kidnap and enchant some men, women and children to be their beautiful playthings or drudging servants.

Despite this endemic, albeit low frequency, problem of fairy kidnappings; the people of Northern England regarded the era of The Raven King as a golden age - and had King Arthur-like legends about him returning and resuming his rule - this being a fairly likely prospect given that John Uskglass, despite being a Man in origin, seemed to have become as longaevus as fairies (who can live many thousands of years, and are difficult to kill).

Indeed, the story of the novel is about how the early steps towards this return are 'managed' (from 'behind the scenes') by John Uskglass.


But, in terms of the book; why was the era of magic a better one than the era which succeeded it? My feeling is that it was not because of the extra power deriving from magic and alliance with fairies; but because of the spiritual prerequisites of magic; that to be able to accomplish magic properly required the fairy-like ability to communicate and form alliances with the elements, with England.

So the era of magic was an era of depth and meaning, in which Men belonged to their Land in a way far beyond anything normally achievable.

To do magic, the English need to become 'at home in England' - to enter a real and personal relationship with the elements of their country.

And this requires that very hazardous undertaking: a renewed relationship between Men and fairies.


The Restoration of English magic was therefore, and necessarily, also the restoration of Englishmen's contact with the fairy race - an event which rapidly has some horrible consequences for several English men and women throughout the course of the story.

So, the Restoration of English magic is A Good Thing, but also a thing fraught with danger and with horrible consequences for some people; and although we see mostly the bad effects of renewed contact with fairies, I think we must also assume that this is A Good Thing too - and worth the risks and costs.


As with everything else; the result of interactions between Men and fairies broadly depend on motivations - especially the motivations of Men (who are more moral than fairies). Therefore, the benefits tend to flow from good motivations, and dangers and suffering tends to be a consequence of bad choices - greed, power-seeking, the desire for status, hatred and so on.

Indeed, the bad consequences of fairy contact can be seen to flow from a single bad (wrong, wicked) choice by Gilbert Norrell during his first contact with the fairy known as The Gentleman with the Thistledown Hair - this being the first contact between an English magician and a fairy for some hundreds of years.

More on this soon.

The contrasting character of two modern favourite women literary geniuses

*
It is striking that - although men make up the great bulk of geniuses in most fields, there are plenty of women among the genius novelists and some poets (but no playwrights) - two of my current favourites are JK Rowling who wrote the Harry Potter series, and Susanna Clarke who wrote Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell - which are currently my favourite fictions by living authors.

Looking at them in terms of personality type, there is a great difference (so far as can be judged from public media - all this that follows is my opinion, inference and guesswork).

Susanna Clarke being interviewed at a public event (the, unseen, shoes are flat, comfortable 'pumps')

Susanna Clarke seems a classic bluestocking type, in terms of her rather reserved, even shy, public persona - and her non-celebrity - one might even say reclusive - lifestyle. She is a very pleasant looking lady, but - unusually nowadays - has not dyed her hair and is naturally grey, she dresses traditionally and modestly, she does not project sexuality. She is a slow and careful writer and has only published one novel and a few short stories. She seldom gives an opinion on public subjects - although everything suggests she has broadly mainstream Leftist views (with the exception of being patriotically English).

*

JKR in skyscraper shoes and plunge neckline at a movie premiere

Joanna Rowling is in contrast a very public celebrity - never out of the news, making pronouncements on many subjects, and allying with several fashionable Left Wing causes. She presented herself in a sexualized manner, having had plastic surgery and wearing fashionable and immodest clothing.

In both womens' great works, there is an underlying Christian ethos; although I gather that Clarke is not a Christian and Rowling is currently a very liberal Christian (or else, as I believe, apostate and not a real Christian nowadays - even though she clearly was when writing Harry Potter) - however, in my understanding, the Christian frame is essential to the excellence of both authors' best work.

My point here is that real geniuses always have the Endogenous personality type - as I have called it (see reference below) -  but the Endogenous personality includes people expressing very different behaviours - as widely different as Clarke and Rowling.

The Endogenous personality can be regarded as a destiny - and only when it is so regarded, will genius achievement (potentially) follow. The interesting distinction between these two women, is that Rowling seem to me to have betrayed her destiny, while Clarke has tried to remain faithful to it.

Why do I say Rowling has betrayed her genius - simply because she is very-obviously very-concerned with how she presents herself to the public; and that acts to sabotage genuine quality, high-level achievement... genius. (This extends to creating a distorted, and dishonest, and self-serving mythology of her own life as a writer.) Rowling is consciously, almost systematically sabotaging her own destiny as a creative person. Unless she repents this, she will certainly have destroyed her own genius.

Therefore I think it is not possible that Rowling could again write anything as good as the Harry Potter series; while it is possible that Clarke could write another thing as good as Strange and Norrell.

But the situation is not symmetrical. Whereas Rowling cannot produce anything great again, because she has eliminated an essential element of great work; Clarke will not necessarily produce another great work even if she is faithful to her destiny, because achievement may be blocked by the lack of other necessary factors - such as health, or luck.

This is, indeed, what corrupts so many artists, why the culture of celebrity (of 'success') has been lethal to so many geniuses in recent years: on the one side they have a certainty of worldly-success (money, fame, status, power) - offered them on a plate, or indeed thrust-upon them; while on the other hand there is only a possibility of doing more great works.

Here-and-now certainty versus the mere possibility at some point in the future - the public world versus personal destiny - Pleasure versus Fulfillment - Prestige versus Creativity - Man versus God...

http://iqpersonalitygenius.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/the-endogenous-personality-its.html 

Subcreation and world-building in Susanna Clarke's Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell

*
Having read the notes in addition to the novel, it is clear that Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell (by Susanna Clarke) is one of the most real fictional subcreations I have ever encountered.

It is very difficult not to believe it really happened, because the world is so detailed, so consistent, so convincing. As I walked around Newcastle today, I kept thinking of the time when the Raven King ruled from here - I even saw a raven!

I was trying to the think of comparisons in the post-Tolkien literature.

The nearest fantasy I could come are the Alan Garner Weirdstone of Brisingamen/ Moon of Gomrath duo in which the magical events are sewn-into a lot of local and family history, folklore and neo-paganism. The ring of truth and believable - but the detail is much less than in JS&MN.

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/review-of-alan-garners-weirdstone-of.html

The other example is the Glass Family stories by JS Salinger, which are also difficult not to believe, and similar in their detailed and deep and partly factual back-story (albeit in a different style) to JS&MN.

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/zooey-wins-and-explaining-seymours.html


('Difficult not to believe', that is, with the exception of the last Glass story published - Hapworth 16 1924, which is simply atrocious).
*

Review of Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell by Susanna Clarke (2004)

*

https://ourblogisawesome.wordpress.com/2012/04/29/pop-culture-redefined/

I simply cannot believe how good this book is! It strikes me as one of the very best novels I have ever read, and one which will change my life and the way I think about things.

I am also bewildered as to how I have missed it for the past eleven years - indeed, when I was on holiday I picked-up a copy three years ago and leafed through it; then replaced it on the shelf unread.

I can only assume that I was put-off by various off-putting aspects of the book's presentation to the reading public which rubbed me up the wrong way.

(Apparently, an extreme hype; endorsements by 'the usual suspects'; the fact that it seemingly emanated from the world of professional publishing - and was, therefore, likely to have been expertly crafted to impress.)

Well, I eventually got to read the book through watching the first episode of a BBC TV adaptation, currently running - and being caught-up, liking it very much (the episodes have since declined a bit) - found it running in my mind... I was on holiday in the country when I felt I could not delay reading it. I did not want to wait to buy a paper copy - so I obtained it on Kindle.

But whatever it was that delayed my engagement; I was wrong, wrong, wrong! This is a truly wonderful book - a labour of love, deep, wise, inspired - extremely well-written and constructed - absolutely fascinating, and (plot-wise) un-put-down-able.

I have been living in its imaginative world for the past week - and already things look different.

(And I haven't even yet read the extensive footnotes, which some people say is the best bit!)

Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell is in the 'fantasy' genre; about magic, magicians, fairies; set in the early 1800s (and written in a semi-pastiche of the style of that era); and in an England (a world) where there is the back-story of a 300 year period of the middle ages during which the North of England was ruled by the greatest-ever enchanter (a human stolen and reared by fairies) called The Raven King - whose capital was Newcastle (i.e. the city where I live!).

So, one way and another; there is another English genius - and her name is Susanna Clarke.

*

What is fairy magic? From Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell

Just then a high, mournful sound broke in upon Stephen's dream – a slow, sad song in an unknown language and Stephen understood without ever actually waking that the gentleman with the thistle-down hair was singing.

It may be laid down as a general rule that if a man begins to sing, no one will take any notice of his song except his fellow human beings. This is true even if his song is surpassingly beautiful.

Other men may be in raptures at his skill, but the rest of creation is, by and large, unmoved. Perhaps a cat or a dog may look at him; his horse, if it is an exceptionally intelligent beast, may pause in cropping the grass, but that is the extent of it.

But when the fairy sang, the whole world listened to him.

Stephen felt clouds pause in their passing; he felt sleeping hills shift and murmur; he felt cold mists dance. He understood for the first time that the world is not dumb at all, but merely waiting for someone to speak to it in a language it understands. In the fairy's song the earth recognized the names by which it called itself.

Stephen began to dream again. This time he dreamt that hills walked and the sky wept. Trees came and spoke to him and told him their secrets and also whether or not he might regard them as friends or enemies. Important destinies were hidden inside pebbles and crumpled leaves.

He dreamt that everything in the world – stones and rivers, leaves and fire – had a purpose which it was determined to carry out with the utmost rigour, but he also understood that it was possible sometimes to persuade things to a different purpose.

From Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell, a novel by Susanna Clarke (2004)

England is full of magicians! (From Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell.)

Edited from Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell - by Susanna Clarke - 2004.

"England is full of magicians. Hundreds! Thousands perhaps! Tell them this: Tree speaks to stone; stone speaks to water. Magic is not so hard as we have supposed. Tell them to read what is written in the sky. Tell them to ask the rain! All of John Uskglass's old alliances are still in place. I am sending messengers to remind the stones and the sky and the rain of their ancient promises. Tell them . . . I cannot explain it," he said...


http://albionawakening.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/england-is-full-of-magicians.html

An example of specific divine guidance in my life

I do not like blogging about my own spiritual experiences; partly from reticence and partly because spiritual guidance is designed for the benefit of the recipient not as general teaching. 

Furthermore, each experience of personal miracles, or of the guidance of the Holy Ghost, has been so different in its specifics; that the major lesson for me has been that there is no method for such matters. 

(Indeed, to teach or assume generic methods for the Christian life, or to convert personal mystical experiences into advice, seem likely to do more harm than good.) 

On the other hand; it may somewhat encouraging for other people to know that a long-term and deep personal question for which I sought a response for some years did, in the end, receive an answer - albeit slowly and by a very indirect and not-replicable route.

I am not going to discuss the answer I was given; but I will describe something of the strange and unexpected way that an answer was communicated to me - in such a way that the process got past my fundamental misunderstandings and false pre-conceptions, and convinced me intuitively of its validity. 

I have often observed that when a question does not get an answer from divine sources; this is almost always because the question is ill-formed, and contains fundamentally wrong assumptions. These are why God cannot answer us - despite His vast resources. 

Furthermore; we are (nearly always) looking for the wrong kind of answer - and often something which is self-gratifying, or perhaps fits with false ideas of our own nature and destiny. 

This may explain why I was not able to get an answer of value or validity to the question oft what I ought to be doing in my life. I had too many fantasies and day-dreams that blocked my understanding. 

So, God's problem, in trying to help me, was to work past a great mass of such preconceptions, false understandings, wrong notions of the kind of thing I sought; and the tendency to ignore the true answer if given me straightforwardly, because the simple truth 'wasn't what I wanted to hear'... 

The only positive thing I was able to do to assist the process was to maintain my intent to find an answer over a period of years. I didn't give up. 

Admittedly I wasted considerable time, money and effort on dozens of false leads; but I kept plugging away - and followed hunches. 

What proved essential in the end; I let myself pursue lines of enquiry that had some kind of here-and-now interest to me; even when these appeared 'rationally' to be dead-ends, or trivial. 

Thus I have recently been re-reading around the subject of Christian 'ceremonial magic' - in particular the books of Gareth Knight and Dion Fortune, who I regard as admirable people. But I had already read these authors in the past couple of years, and had become clear in my mind that such a ritual and symbol, organized, approach to Christian living was now obsolete: it simply does not work anymore. 

I have also been re-reading Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell, and focused on the episode when Childermass uses his 'Cards of Marseilles' (i.e. Tarot cards) to tell the fortune of Vinculus, and later to discern dishonesty and theft by Lascelles. 

Such reading led me to re-watch some DVDs of a nostalgic children's TV series from the early 1970s called Ace of Wands; which featured the hero 'Tarot' - a professional stage magician who also had some psychic powers such as telepathy, remote visualization and telekinesis. 

Having enjoyed this; I then got-out my Rider-Waite Tarot Card pack, which had featured in the TV programme; and looked-through some of its pictures.

Having replaced the cards, I absent-mindedly attempted to place it on a table; when the pack accidentally fell to the ground, and two cards jumped-out - and lay face down on the floor.  

It then came to my mind that these two cards would answer my question about what to do in my life.

I immediately thought that this was stupid, because (no matter how valid the process) I would always read-into the cards whatever answer I wanted: in other words, I would fool myself, and therefore the exercise would be useless. 

I don't believe in fortune telling; I don't believe that divination works (nowadays - although it did work in ancient times - up to the early years of the Roman Empire); and I certainly was not seeking 'guidance from the cards'.  

Nonetheless, I picked-up the cards one by one; and immediately recognized that the first card depicted myself and my condition: not as I fondly imagined myself, but as I actually was. 

This came as a shock, and I turned over the second card with some curiosity. 

The second card was one of the Greater Trumps, and I did not know its (supposed) meaning; so I looked it up in the leaflet provided - all the while thinking that it would be futile, because the descriptions are (like newspaper horoscopes) always so vague and ambiguous that they cannot possibly be sufficiently specific to serve as clear guidance for life...  

I read the sentence describing what the card meant, then - after a couple of seconds of dawning recognition - I realized that this was exactly the answer I needed and it was true. 

The generic phrases each and all had specific relevance to my condition.

The answer was obvious, banal, simple - and it was clearly the truth; yet I had missed it and missed it, for a very long time. 

I had to be set-up for this knowledge, in the right frame of mind and expectation; and I had to be surprised by the answer. 

What I think can be learned from the above is that if we persist in seeking an answer to an important question; then God can and will find a way to get that answer to us; and will prepare us to receive that answer. 

And God can do this even when we are (as I was) asking almost exactly the opposite question to the one we needed to ask; and when the mind is clouded and confused by innumerable wrong notions and hopes. 

Therefore; don't give up, and be prepared to follow where inner promptings indicate - even when these are pointing in apparently trivial or useless directions. 

And I think it is worthwhile to recall that the answer will be personal, very exactly tailored to you as an individual and your circumstances.

Also; the method by which God works to deliver the answer will be... Whatever does the job - and that method, too, will be one-off, unique - hence completely unpredictable.  

Which is exactly what is necessary. 

The year's reading in review

While I read much less than I once did - I am delighted to have made some significant 'discoveries' both in fiction and non-fiction through 2015.

1. In fiction the main discovery was Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell by Susanna Clarke (2004) which was certainly one of the best novels I have ever read - and within my favourite adult fantasy genre. I was put onto this by a BBC TV adaptation which was significantly flawed, but whose first two episodes conveyed enough of the novel's virtues to get me to read it.

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=norrell

2. The other discovery was another fantasy-genre writer Brandon Sanderson. This is very recent - I read the teen-fantasy The Rithmatist a few months ago

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/book-recommendation-rithmatist-by.html

And just a few days ago finished a very long and extremely enjoyable audiobook version of the first version of a projected ten-volume adult fantasy called The Way of Kings.

Sanderson strikes me as an exceptionally deep and knowledgeable writer - he is also highly prolific and only about forty years old, which is particularly pleasing.

3. After many years of trying and failing to get onto his wavelength, the writing of Owen Barfield was unlocked for me by The Fellowship, a new group biography og The Inklings

http://notionclubpapers.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/review-of-fellowship-literary-lives-of.html

Since then I have had great benefit from reading some of Barfield's philosophical books and individual essays.

4. Barfield was an Anthroposophist which again pointed me at Rudolf Steiner, which led to the discovery of Jeremy Naydler - a modern English writer on spiritual and philosophical themes who has particular expertise on Ancient Egypt. Convergently listening to an audiobook of teen-fantasy writer Rick Riordan's Ancient Egyptian Gods series The Kane Chronicles with the family (as in-car entertainment) led me to want to read more about Egypt.

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=Naydler

5. I have also continued to read slowly, and reflect considerably upon, the writings of William Arkle - but strictly speaking, that was a 2014 discovery...

http://williamarkle.blogspot.co.uk/


 

"The World" Tarot (Marseille) - symbolism explicated

 Behind the dirty yellow curtain... Childermass uses his Marseille Tarot, hand-copied from an ancient set lent him by a sailer, to divine what's going-on with Vinculus in Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell (BBC adaptation)

William James Tychoneivich continues his slow, extraordinarily detailed and wide-ranging, sifting of the symbolism of the Major Arcana of the Marseille Tarot pack; with The World.

Albion Awakening - a new blog

I have begun a new blog, with John Fitzgerald and William Wildblood as collaborators, on the theme of spiritual Britain, and especially England - potentially awakening from centuries of slumber.

http://albionawakening.blogspot.co.uk

The blog sees itself as working in a lineage of 'Romanticism' which I perceive as including (but not restricted to) the likes of William Blake, ST Coleridge, William Wordsworth, JRR Tolkien, CS Lewis, Owen Barfield, William Arkle; and (currently) Jermey Naydler and the fictional worlds of JK Rowling's Harry Potter and Susanna Clarke's Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell...

(John and William will be adding to this list from their distinctive personal experiences.)

That is, English Christians of creativity and intuition who are especially concerned with the transformation of human consciousness. 

We sense a time of stirring, and perhaps an impending moment of decision; and the blog is primarily intended to provide clarification, inspiration and daily encouragement to those who hope for that new and spiritual England we can call Albion.

What I am reading (including audiobooks)...

If I take the past few weeks as a time-slice - the main things I am reading have been mostly reflected on this blog:

1. Major theme: I am exploring the Romantic Metaphysics tradition (I just made-up that name) of Coleridge, Steiner, Barfield and Arkle - by various combinations of slow intensive reading, listening to bits read aloud (this applies mainly to the Steiner, which is available in this form - but my Kindle will read aloud any book, albeit in a robotic and badly-emphasised fashion) and almost random dippings-in by impulse. A bit of Traherne.

2. Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell - yes... I'm afraid I am listening again to this as an audiobook - from the beginning. And loving it.

3. Tolkien - dipping mainly, but I re-read The Notion Club Papers (nth time), and looking through bits of the History of Middle Earth, and favourite parts of Lord of the Rings; listening (in the car) to Smith of Wootton Major. I tried to listen to The Children of Hurin read by Christopher Lee, but did not like the work or the reading of it.

4. Again in the car, I listened to the funny stories and verse of a Northumbrian farmer - about farming life - called Henry Brewis - who issued three CDs in the 1990s.

5. I have watched a couple of Shakespeare plays on DVD and read in Sam Johnson's and Coleridge's Shakespearian crit.

6. Read various poems from Palgrave's Golden Treasury.

7. Tried to read A Voyage to Arcturus by David Lindsay, but gave up 1/3 of the way through from lack of interest.

8. Bedtime reading aloud (to my wife) - Finished one Miss Read 'Fairacre' novel by Miss Read, and started another - in between got more than halfway through RL Stevenson's Travels with a Donkey (a re-read, maybe fourth time including talking books?) but it didn't work terribly well read aloud and unedited.

9. Family listening in the car - Terry Pratchett - finished Small Gods, am most way through Soul Music.

10. Ground to a halt in listening to an audiobook of the Emerson biography by Robert D Richardson - a book I used to love to the point of obsession, but I now find Emerson too annoying with his multiple proto-progressive views (supported strongly by the biographer).

11. Not much scripture - mainly the Gospel of John.

12. Continuing my rather slow progression through Terryl Givens's Wrestling the Angel account of Mormon theology.
*

Probably more - the large number of works is mainly a reflection of my rather desultory current habits, as I drift from one thing to another...

The reason for so much 'audio' reading is that I listen to books - or cricket - while doing cooking and other kitchen chores.

(When I say 'cooking' I should really write 'food preparation' - of which I do a lot which is necessary and also something I am happy to do for the family; although I very seldom really cook anything. I don't hate it, and I like mealtimes and getting drinks and snacks etc for the family members - but cooking does not give me any intrinsic satisfaction. I have never made a meal I was 'proud of'.)