# Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell - BBC TV series



## Ursa major (May 17, 2015)

The BBC's seven-part TV adaptation starts at 21:00 tonight.


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (May 17, 2015)

This clearly requires an immediate look at the BBC America website to see when it is coming here.

_____

And ... I'm back.  June 13 is the day in the US.  June is going to be a big month, because Poldark starts June 21 on PBS.


----------



## Jo Zebedee (May 17, 2015)

Oooh, Poldark. Yum. 

It's been on half an hour. We're already further into the book than I managed in 3 weeks of reading...


----------



## Susan Boulton (May 17, 2015)

It was superb. A joyous blend of creepy and the ridiculous, as in a mixture of Dickens type characters crossed with Jane Austin types. 



Spoiler



The bit in York Minster was great


----------



## The Judge (May 17, 2015)

Thoroughly enjoyed it.  My only complaint was that there were several occasions when some of the dialogue was inaudible/unintelligible -- Vinculus was a particular offender.  The script/screenplay adapted the book well, the sets and clothes etc were all excellent -- though perhaps the gentleman's hair could have been more thistle-downy! -- and the actors uniformly good.


----------



## HareBrain (May 17, 2015)

Wonderful, loved it. I agree with TJ about some of the dialogue, but I don't think I missed anything crucial. I've forgotten so much of the book that it seemed very fresh.


----------



## Ursa major (May 18, 2015)

Thoroughly enjoyed it.

(I must admit to being a bit apprehensive, as adaptations sometimes don't match one's expectations, either in terms of faithfulness** or implementation.)


** - My recollections about the plot of the novel have faded quite a bit, so I'm not sure I'd notice that many deviations. However, it seemed to match what I do recall (such as the convoluted way to Mr Norrell's study, assuming I actually read about that in the book...).


----------



## mosaix (May 18, 2015)

The BBC at its best.


----------



## HareBrain (May 18, 2015)

mosaix said:


> The BBC at its best.



What with Wolf Hall, this, and the amazing Shark (rapidly becoming one of my favourite nature documentaries ever) they really seem to be pulling out all the stops in the run up to charter renewal.


----------



## GOLLUM (May 20, 2015)

Ursa major said:


> The BBC's seven-part TV adaptation starts at 21:00 tonight.


Hopefully they will produce a DVD of this? It is probably the only way I will get to see it....


----------



## Brian G Turner (May 20, 2015)

I wondered why this book was prominently displayed in Sainsburys - hadn't realised there was a TV adaptation. Will watch it on Sunday. 

EDIT: Cheers for the Shark recommendation, HB - looks like I need to catch up on some good programmes on iPlayer.


----------



## Vladd67 (May 21, 2015)

Shows how a story can be improved with some editing. I have attempted to read this in the past, and will try again I think.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Jun 1, 2015)

I watched part one on Monday. The production values are wonderful, but the story seems to be plodding along - the first 20 minutes or so were devoted to Secondus, and yet he increasingly looks like he's nothing more than a peripheral character whose purpose was to just introduce us to Mr Norrell. Hopefully he'll prove me wrong and come into the story later.

Norrell's conflict isn't coming through clearly: sometimes he wants to be recognised as a magician, and he puts on a show to prove himself before a bunch of scoffing Yorkshiremen; and yet he won't do anything to demonstrate ability in a private meeting with the Prime Minister of Great Britain. And when he does eventually do something, it's only because he's cajoled into acting - and invokes spirits he said should be avoided? Seems inconsistent so far, but maybe it's not coming through well in the screenplay. 

Jonathan Strange has some charisma as a fool, but his girlfriend/finance seems bizarre in that she still refuses to marry him, on the grounds that being a country gentleman isn't enough - he must have a profession. Que?

The Raven King's servant is the only character I'm rooting for at the moment - but he seems to be the most active and most consistent character so far. 

The notion of magic used also seems a little confused - none in England for 300 years? John (cough) Dee? And if magic cannot show the future, how can Norrell's butler can plainly read the future for the Raven King's servant? Magic and the occult are not related??

I'm nit-picking, though, and the family seems keen on a second episode - certainly worth watching alone for the sets.


----------



## Ursa major (Jun 1, 2015)

After three episodes, I'm still very impressed with the adaptation.

By the way, I read somewhere where the producer (or director) mentioned it had originally been a six-part programme, but they were allowed a seventh as long as the production budget remained the same. I have to say that on the evidence so far, either that budget was quite large or they've spent their money very wisely.


Responding to a couple of Brian's points:





Brian Turner said:


> The notion of magic used also seems a little confused - none in England for 300 years? John (cough) Dee?


I think it's fair to assume that if a John Dee lived in the same universe as the story, he'd have been as big a fraud as he was in ours, and because they had had relatively recent experience of real magic, they'd have known that he was a fraud.





Brian Turner said:


> Norrell's conflict isn't coming through clearly: sometimes he wants to be recognised as a magician, and he puts on a show to prove himself before a bunch of scoffing Yorkshiremen; and yet he won't do anything to demonstrate ability in a private meeting with the Prime Minister of Great Britain. And when he does eventually do something, it's only because he's cajoled into acting - and invokes spirits he said should be avoided? Seems inconsistent so far, but maybe it's not coming through well in the screenplay.


I think Mr Norrell is someone who wants the respect he thinks he deserves, yet _wants_ to do as little as he can to obtain it; however, when he gets frustrated -- and desperate -- at his (total) lack of progress, he can go too far.


----------



## BAYLOR (Jun 2, 2015)

It looks good


----------



## ctg (Jun 3, 2015)

Ursa major said:


> After three episodes, I'm still very impressed with the adaptation.



I haven't read the books, but it didn't stop me watching all three as well even if I'm avoiding watching BBC like a plague. Thing is, the production of this series is bar with other costume dramas and the way they use CGI and traditional special effect only enhance value of this series. 

I love they way they use visuals to convoy the magic. Not only that but they also show that some people, like Mr Norrell requires physical items while others can adapt their inner magician to make an effect. However, what confuses me is lack of other users as there should be plenty of them in that world even if statics are well class of 0.0001 percent of all population being able to use magic. And that speaks to me about the efforts of Secondus building up a school of magic in Raven King's place. Maybe it is that people harbour the ability, just that it isn't coming strongly as it should for people reading and experience spectacular magical effects being perform all over historic Europe. Is that the Gentleman's reason for keeping the magical realm his hostage? He doesn't want it opening up. 

Anyways, I will keep watching this series as it has convinced me.


----------



## HareBrain (Jun 3, 2015)

I'm still really enjoying this. I love the creaking sound (like the rigging of a rotting, abandoned hulk, I imagine) that accompanies the gentleman's appearance. I'm also intrigued that in the first episode, his coat had leaves incorporated into its design at the shoulders, but these then disappeared. Was that meant to signify something?


----------



## The Judge (Jun 3, 2015)

I never noticed the creaking sound!  I hadn't specifically noticed the leaves, but doesn't he keep changing his clothes? I knew we should have recorded the episodes so I could go back over them and look for the details I missed first time around.

I'm still enjoying it, but I'm not so taken with the special effects -- I was a bit disappointed with the scene in York Minster -- and in the second episode:  


Spoiler



Re the ship caught on the horsesands -- the sand horses looked good, but how were they meant to right the ship by jumping over it?  Despite the cries of alarm, I didn't see any sailors on board, and I can't believe Portsea in the 1810s looked so utterly isolated with only the one ship in sight -- you think they could have stretched to another craft or two nearby.  And it's not SFX but I didn't like the dead Neapolitans, who were too zombiefied for my taste.  Was that scene different in the book?



Generally, I thought there appeared to be a change of emphasis from what I remembered of the novel, with Arabella being more prominent, and then I read an article about/interview with the actress playing her and apparently that was a deliberate decision by the scriptwriter. I don't know if they thought it would make the show more engaging to women viewers.




Brian Turner said:


> Jonathan Strange has some charisma as a fool, but his girlfriend/finance seems bizarre in that she still refuses to marry him, on the grounds that being a country gentleman isn't enough - he must have a profession. Que?


My understanding of it is she thought he was a bit of a wastrel, and she wanted him to have an aim and a purpose in life, beyond simply spending money and getting drunk.


----------



## hardsciencefanagain (Jun 3, 2015)

I have NOT read the novel,and have just watched the first episode.Not being a native English speaker,the more softly spoken parts were not totally
intelligible.Splendid effort,in the best Beeb tradition


----------



## HareBrain (Jun 3, 2015)

The Judge said:


> I never noticed the creaking sound! I hadn't specifically noticed the leaves, but doesn't he keep changing his clothes? I knew we should have recorded the episodes so I could go back over them and look for the details I missed first time around.
> 
> I'm still enjoying it, but I'm not so taken with the special effects -- I was a bit disappointed with the scene in York Minster -- and in the second episode:



I wondered if the leaves were meant to suggest that at the time of his initial summoning, he was still more in the earlier tradition of fairies being more country folk, but he then quickly updated to a society mode of dress after being exposed to it.

I agree with all your queries and reservations about the spoilered bit -- I thought that was the weakest part so far and made almost no sense. (And why would the fort already be ruined?)

I can't remember the book well enough to say how well individual elements match, but the overall tone feels about the same.


----------



## Caledfwlch (Jun 6, 2015)

The Faeri chap, it's not so much that what he is saying is unintelligable, its that they have put some sort of weird echo effect over it, presumably to make him seem "other wordly"


----------



## Ursa major (Jun 7, 2015)

I blame the whistlethistledown hair....


----------



## Caledfwlch (Jun 8, 2015)

One thing I am confused about - am i correct that England is the only place to have Magic even in the past?

And was it just England or Britain in general, so there were welsh, irish and scots sorcerers?
It just occurs to me, if France for example had magic, then surely it would have defeated england long ago, once it was no longer defended by magic.


----------



## Ursa major (Jun 8, 2015)

No other countries seem to be mentioned in the TV programme, and I can't recall what the position was in the book (though I think it was just England again). This probably has something to do with John Uskglass (the Raven King) and his use of faerie magic. Perhaps -- and this is just speculation on my part -- save for Uskglass's efforts in (northern?) England, the use of faerie magic is confined to Faeries and they generally leave the human world alone. (The King's Roads possibly have something to do with this: it's only where** they exist, i.e. England, where the human and other worlds can influence each other.)


** - Save for when magicians move, say, to Iberia, when they take the magic with them.


----------



## hardsciencefanagain (Jun 9, 2015)

AARGH
checked my recorder
Episode three is missing


----------



## clovis-man (Jun 9, 2015)

Got the DVR set to record the series here in the U.S. I've avoided reading this doorstop of a book for some time. Will I be forced to relent after watching the filmed version??


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Jun 17, 2015)

It's finally showing in the US.  I just watched the first episode for the second time.

It seems to me to be shaping up well.  Many of the characters are not at all as I envisioned them!  I didn't care for the man with the thistledown hair (I think they were trying a little too hard to make him look like a fairy, whereas I always envisioned him as looking more human but just a bit . . . not).  Childermass is not _at all_ as I thought he would be, but he's suitably mysterious and just a little sinister, so no complaints there.

My husband, who's never read the book, had some trouble following the story and the motivations of the character.  So I guess there are flaws in the script.  But since I _did _read the book it all made perfect sense to me.  At the same time, it's been so long since I read the book, I don't remember everything, so there is still the pleasure of the occasional surprise (like the card reading scene).


----------



## HareBrain (Jun 17, 2015)

Teresa Edgerton said:


> Many of the characters are not at all as I envisioned them! I didn't care for the man with the thistledown hair (I think they were trying a little too hard to make him look like a fairy, whereas I always envisioned him as looking more human but just a bit . . . not).



He looks a bit less obviously faery (I think) in future episodes, especially in his costume. I agree he wasn't like I pictured him from the book (or as he was illustrated), but now that he's eclipsed that earlier image I think he's extremely well done.


----------



## hardsciencefanagain (Jun 17, 2015)

Watched part of episode II.
I haven't read the book,so i am judging this adaptation solely on its merits.

I think the beeb has done a fantastic job.
the sets,the actors,the whole mood.
Once more,a quality series from the BBC.
Belgian television is rerunning LUTHER.Yet another great series,edge of your seat stuff
Idris Elba is fantastic in it.
_*fondly remembers RED DWARF*_


----------



## HareBrain (Jun 17, 2015)

Episode 5 was shown in the UK on Sunday, and after what I thought was a bit of a lull**, it's picking up again now very nicely, and a character we've seen too little off has reappeared. I'm happy I've forgotten so much of the books, as it makes it seem all new again.

** So to anyone who thinks it gets a bit repetitive or bogged down in ep3/4 -- and it never did to any great extent, in my opinion -- my advice would be to stick with it.


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Jun 17, 2015)

hardsciencefanagain said:


> the sets,the actors,the whole mood.



Of course it's early days for me, since I've only seen the first episode, but so far I very much agree.

One thing I like is that the sets don't look like sets.  The interiors look like people really live in them.  And I like that the clothes, even the finest, look like they have been worn before.  Nevertheless, I think I might like to see a little more starch in the neckcloths of the gentlemen and some better-fitting trousers (most of them seem a little loose and droopy), but maybe I wouldn't.  Maybe the intention in making the clothing look a little careless and tired is to show that society has gone to seed along with the loss of magic.  If that was the intention I suppose 



Spoiler



I shouldn't expect to see any of that change by the end because if the story follows the book there still won't be a great revival of magic where all the theoretical magicians start practicing magic.



But now that I'm considering that might be something they are trying to convey, I think I'll start looking for it elsewhere.

Vinculus troubled me because he looked so familiar (_not_ in the same way as an actor I have seen many times before, like Samuel West, but in a way closer to real life, despite the fact that he's so bizarre) until I remembered that I had actually met men who looked and acted very much like him (he's a little exaggerated but not much) in the days I was working at Renaissance Faires and visiting bookshops in Berkeley.  There was always at least one guy who looked that scraggly and dirty, and who seemed to think that acting bizarre was the same thing as acting mystical (although drugs were probably a factor, too). I'd bet that the costume designers, the casting director, and the director all were thinking, "Yeah, Vinculus, he'd be like a total hippy!"  Yet I don't doubt that some of the street magicians of the early 19th century were much the same.  Some things never change.


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Jun 22, 2015)

Just watched the second episode.  If I hadn't read the book, I think I would be very confused right about now.


----------



## clovis-man (Jun 22, 2015)

Teresa Edgerton said:


> Just watched the second episode.  If I hadn't read the book, I think I would be very confused right about now.



I've watched the first episode and have both the first and the second set aside on my DVR. Not having read the book, the first episode seemed a little blurry. I'll be waiting for (1) my ordered copy of the book to arrive and (2) the time that I return from a couple of weeks on vacation to  possibly binge-watch and/or read.


----------



## Remedy (Jun 29, 2015)

I've been watching this without having read the book. I've been left a little confused at times, so I'm hoping everything will be cleared up in the last part that I'll watch later.

After reading the premise, I actually hoped for more from this series. Is it much better in the book?

The special effects have been quite impressive for a BBC production.


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Jun 30, 2015)

Remedy said:


> Is it much better in the book?



It's purely a matter of taste, I think.

A lot of people find the pace of the book very slow, and the style (which is a convincing imitation of something a 19th century writer might have written) strikes many as ponderous.  But for others the style is part of what makes the book so delightful.  In the book there is more subtlety in the characterization, and though some things are purposely left mysterious, it is a great deal easier to keep track of what is happening and why.

For myself, I am finding the book and the dramatization complimentary.  Because I read the book (even though it was a long time ago and I don't remember as much as I might like) many things that probably would have been confusing aren't, and I have that greater understanding of the characters to draw on.  With all that, watching it brought to life visually is a treat.  I watched the third episode yesterday and was particularly caught up in JS's part of the story.  As Bertie Carvel plays the role, Jonathan strikes me as more likable than in the book.  Mr Norrell, on the other hand, is exactly as he was in the book.

Without having read the book, I probably would not have liked it so well.  On the other hand, I am a bit of a push-over when it comes to that period if it is portrayed well, as in this case it is.

(I rather suspect that none of this is a really useful answer.)


----------



## HareBrain (Jun 30, 2015)

Teresa Edgerton said:


> Because I read the book (even though it was a long time ago and I don't remember as much as I might like) many things that probably would have been confusing aren't,



The writer of an article in a UK online TV magazine said the same (as I would have done myself), but almost all the comments came from viewers who hadn't read the book and found it easy enough to follow. I think the only thing the book really helps with is familiarity with the idea of the Raven King, who is left so vague as to possibly leave viewers wondering if they've missed something.


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Jun 30, 2015)

HareBrain said:


> the Raven King, who is left so vague as to possibly leave viewers wondering if they've missed something.



That's a good point.  If I remember correctly, in the book most of the information about the Raven King is given in the footnotes, which naturally play no part in the dramatization.


----------



## Ursa major (Jun 30, 2015)

Teresa Edgerton said:


> Because I read the book (even though it was a long time ago and I don't remember as much as I might like) many things that probably would have been confusing aren't, and I have that greater understanding of the characters to draw on.


I _think_ I'm in the same boat, although I obviously can't say whether I'd have found it confusing if I'd never read the book.

But in any case, I thought the series was wonderful.


----------



## Idoru (Jul 2, 2015)

I really enjoyed it. I read the book ages ago and can't remember much, but as others have said here I think it did help inform my understanding. I thought it an excellently well made series that was exceptionally well acted, especially by the two leads. 

I wonder if the ending has left it open for a second series, with Strange and Norrell finding their way home?


----------



## Jesse412 (Jul 5, 2015)

Just finished watching this and was really impressed by the production value. I'm not big into fantasy and magic but I absolutely loved this. There are some exceptional performances throughout especially the leads Bertie Carvel and Eddie Marsan as the title characters. Marc Warren also gives an excellent and creepy performance as The Gentleman. I really hope we get more.


----------



## HareBrain (Jul 5, 2015)

Jesse412 said:


> I really hope we get more.



I hope so too. Has there been any mention of a second series? (Which I'm assuming would be written from scratch.)

In the meantime, if people want more more fantasy set in that kind of period, I can't do better than recommend Teresa Edgerton's Goblin Moon, which IMO has similar charms to Clarke's book. And it now only costs about a shilling!

https://www.sffchronicles.com/threads/560376/


----------



## Droflet (Jul 6, 2015)

As Harebrain has previously pointed out, this show is a tad sluggish at times. Yet it still has enough going for it to interest even non fantasy reading heathen like me.


----------



## Ursa major (Jul 6, 2015)

Jesse412 said:


> the leads Bertie Carvel and Eddie Marsan as the title characters


They were both excellent. I don't recall seeing Carvel at all before, and I've only seen Marsan briefly as, if I recall correctly, an escaped convict in an episode of a 1990s sitcom (although I know he's also been in lots of films since then).

One of the (completely unexpected) delights of the last episode was seeing Norrell suddenly becoming gloriously happy, the sun seeming to shine out of Marsan's face. Quite remarkable.


----------



## clovis-man (Jul 7, 2015)

After watching the first episode, I decided to watch the remainder only after reading the book. My ordered copy being slow to arrive, I downloaded it on Kindle and have been absorbed in it. I think I'll like the BBC version more after I finish reading. Or at least, I'll be able to follow it better.


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Jul 8, 2015)

HareBrain said:


> I hope so too. Has there been any mention of a second series? (Which I'm assuming would be written from scratch.)
> 
> In the meantime, if people want more more fantasy set in that kind of period, I can't do better than recommend Teresa Edgerton's Goblin Moon, which IMO has similar charms to Clarke's book.



Thank you!  There are moments when my mind plays tricks on me and I can see one of my characters walking along one of the streets or crossing one of the crowded rooms at a soiree.



Ursa major said:


> One of the (completely unexpected) delights of the last episode was seeing Norrell suddenly becoming gloriously happy, the sun seeming to shine out of Marsan's face. Quite remarkable.



I have a few episodes to go before that one will be available, but in the meantime I think Marsan does an excellent job of portraying Norrell's insecurities so that even when his actions are self-serving (and sometimes a little cruel) it's hard to dislike him.

But I still don't like what they have done to the Gentleman with the Thistledown Hair.  I don't like the way he looks and I don't like the way he's being portrayed, although I am sure that is as the director chose it to be, not any lack of skill on the part of the actor.



clovis-man said:


> I think I'll like the BBC version more after I finish reading.



It will be interesting to find out if you do.  You'll understand more and be able to fill in some of the gaps, of course, but fresh from reading the book you'll probably see a lot of places where the series is different from the book that the rest of us are missing.  Maybe you'll feel the changes are justified, maybe they will annoy you, things in the script that those of us in a happy state of ignorance due to bad memory aren't bothered by at all.


----------



## clovis-man (Jul 8, 2015)

Teresa Edgerton said:


> ...fresh from reading the book you'll probably see a lot of places where the series is different from the book that the rest of us are missing.  Maybe you'll feel the changes are justified, maybe they will annoy you, things in the script that those of us in a happy state of ignorance due to bad memory aren't bothered by at all.



Hard to imagine a dramatization of a book of this length to not be curtailed or edited down in some respect or another. I won't mind (I hope). Just want to get the complete picture.

I'm reminded of the classic film noir classic *The Big Sleep *(1946) with Bogart and Bacall. The tenor of the times required the details of the original Chandler novel to be messed with big time. But still a great film. The Robert Mitchum remake of 1978 was much more faithful to the book, but utterly failed to capture its essence. After all, film-making is an art.

So I'll keep an open mind.


----------



## clovis-man (Jul 25, 2015)

Finished the book a few days ago and am now working my way through the mini-series. First, I have to say that the book was one of the best reads for me over the past decade or so. So I might be expected to nit pick over the dramatization. Not so far. I am thinking that the characters as portrayed on film are pretty much on point. Especially Mr. Norrell. He evinces the anal retentive little twit to a fare-thee-well. Childermass has just the right mix of sullen skepticism and hidden knowledge. The man with the thistledown hair is perhaps a little too one-dimensional. More menacing and intimidating as opposed to the neurotic paranoid in the book. But I have more episodes to watch. Great fun so far, even if some sequences of the book get a little jumbled at times.


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Jul 25, 2015)

The other day I caught up with all the episodes I had missed and have only the last episode left to watch (that will be broadcast tonight, and I'll probably view it tomorrow morning).  Watching three in a row definitely enhanced the experience more than watching them one at a time as I did with the first three.  It improved the pace and actually increased suspense (even though, having read the book I did know how it would all come out) by allowing anticipation to build, rather than giving it time to wear off a bit during the days between episodes.  I think that maybe if they had broadcast it in fewer and longer episodes it might not have lost so many viewers as the series progressed.


----------



## Droflet (Jul 26, 2015)

Saw the final episode last night. For those of you who haven't read the book it's bloody good.


----------



## clovis-man (Aug 4, 2015)

Late getting this note in, but FWIW: After watching the entire series, I find that the imagery is pretty good, the characters nicely drawn and the storyline not too fractured. In other words, I found it entertaining. However, the book was a minor masterpiece. I would compare the two in this way: If I had not read the novel and the mini-series was my first and only exposure to it, I would not be persuaded to read the book.


----------



## Andersson (Aug 26, 2015)

I started reading the book several years ago but never got very far because I found the style to be too dry. However, since the story and setting seems like something that would interest me I decided to give the TV show a chance and I’m glad I did since I very much enjoyed it. Still, the ending did leave me a bit unsatisfied and so I’m wondering if someone who read the book could fill me in, if indeed it was more detailed in the book?

SPOILERS BELOW

Basically it’s the whole thing with the Raven King and the prophecy that’s bothering me. There was one scene near the end when Childemass (?) and Vinculus are riding towards Norrell’s house and sees the black cyclone thingy (the fairy king’s spell) disappearing back into the sky. Childemass says that they are too late (to rescue Strange and Norrell) and Vinculus responds with something along the lines of “Don’t you see, they were the spell”. I take this to mean that all of the events of the story (magic coming back) where part of a great spell/scheme by the Raven King. But what was the purpose of this spell?

My theory is that the Raven King closed the king’s way (access to the fairy lands) because he had somehow made an enemy of the Fairy King (or he simply realized that the Fairy King was becoming too dangerous and uncontrollable). Denied access to the fairy lands the Raven King was deprived of a lot of his power so he had to come up with some way to get rid of the Fairy King so that he could once more open the way to fairy (and thus restore his full power). To this end he orchestrated the series of events in the story in order to kill/replace the Fairy King. Strange and Norrell (and everyone else) were only pawns and in the end they were sacrificed by the Raven King once they had fulfilled their function. The only reason either of them could do any magic was that the Raven King had given them some of his magic to allow them to play their parts (this would explain why there were no other magicians and why Strange was able to learn it so quickly).

This interpretation would give us a rather bleak story of a conflict between two power hungry and ruthless individuals (the Raven King and the Fairy King) that cause a lot of pain, suffering and death among a number of mostly good hearted people (Strange, Norrell, Arabella, Lady Pole and her husband, Stephen and so on). The ending isn’t particularly uplifting either. Yes, the Fairy King gets his well-deserved punishment but that only means that the Raven King is now free to return to his full power and presumably attempt to seize control over England, causing a civil war between the north and the south.

I could be way off on this since, like I said, I’ve only seen the TV series. Is the character and motives of the Raven King made any clearer in the books?


----------



## Idoru (Aug 26, 2015)

I have read the book but such a long time ago that I can't actually remember how it ended! My interpretation of the TV show, though, was that Norrell and Strange were themselves the Raven King's spell. They only existed in order to bring him back. However, this didn't work because they realised what was going on and they sacrificed themselves to save England. So the Fairy King got his punishment and the Raven King is still powerless. But Norrell and Strange are gone. Although not dead, so there could be a second series should the BBC want one.


----------



## clovis-man (Aug 26, 2015)

Andersson said:


> I could be way off on this since, like I said, I’ve only seen the TV series. Is the character and motives of the Raven King made any clearer in the books?



Long question. Even longer book. I won't go into detail, but I found the ending of the TV series to be something of a jumble. The book allows the conclusion to unfold in unhurried and satisfying fashion. And some of the specifics are quite different as well. But to get the full benefit, you'd have to wade through 900 plus pages of a novel with a style you profess not to like. Something of a dilemma. I found the narrative to be enjoyable and highly literate. But then I also grew to love Patrick O'Brien's style in the Aubrey/Maturin series of naval adventures. I think you have a decision to make. Good luck.


----------



## Andersson (Aug 27, 2015)

clovis-man said:


> Long question. Even longer book. I won't go into detail, but I found the ending of the TV series to be something of a jumble. The book allows the conclusion to unfold in unhurried and satisfying fashion. And some of the specifics are quite different as well. But to get the full benefit, you'd have to wade through 900 plus pages of a novel with a style you profess not to like. Something of a dilemma. I found the narrative to be enjoyable and highly literate. But then I also grew to love Patrick O'Brien's style in the Aubrey/Maturin series of naval adventures. I think you have a decision to make. Good luck.



I found some more information regarding the history of the Raven King (edit: forum won't let me post a link) and it seems that maybe he wasn't quite as evil as he looked in the show (apparently he was considered a good, though strange, ruler). I don't think I'll be reading the book any time soon, I'm currently busy with the complete works of H.P. Lovecraft, and I have probably spent enough time wondering about the ending so I'll leave it at that.

I will say that thinking about and analyzing a story after it has ended is usually a very good thing. For comparison, I recently watched the latest Avengers movie and while it was pretty entertaining at the time I can barely remember what the story was.


----------



## Siberian (Sep 29, 2015)

Two more episodes to go. I like what I've seen so far. I read the book about 7 years ago so don't remember much. I noticed Strange is introduced much earlier than in the book (a good thing, too) and Mr Black's love interest is missing. It's a pity because so far it seems all he does is being someone's servant/slave.


----------

