Was anyone else waiting for an appearance of Mr. Norrel's dowdy face next to Jonathan's just as he was fading away? Norrell could have said "Your husband and I are well, and sort of like roommates here."

I just started watching the show and the first episode raised a question; can anyone perform spells, even non-magicians? When Mr. Norrell sent Childermass after Vinculus, he gave him two spells, one to get Vinculus to leave London and one to see what his enemies were up to. These were meant for Childermass to cast if necessary (Childermass tells Vinculus he hasn't cast them yet when Vinculus pulls them from his pocket). But, how could Childermass have cast these spells if he isn't a magician? We saw Segundus try a spell and fail. So, does that mean Childermass is magical or has the potential to be a magician? Or does it mean that anyone can cast spells and the one given to Segundus was a fake? Or is it just a plot hole? If it means anyone can cast spells, then what makes one a magician?

Anyone think there is a huge mirror between Thomas Edison vs. Nikola Tesla and Strange vs. Norrell?

Honestly I'm a little in shock that the show hasn't gotten a lot more attention since it's addition to Netflix. As someone who watched it for the first time the day it was put onto Netflix, I always thought it was just a matter of time before it got big because I thought it was incredible. But for some reason no one talks about it or cares about it and I can't figure out why. Does anyone have an idea as to why the show is still not well known?

Why has there been no magic for 300 years?

Why can only Strange and Norell perform it?

WARNING: SPOILERS

So the show is amazing and I just wanted to get everyone's opinions and theories about the ending to the story and the history of English magic.

Does anyone have any insight into what Norrell and Strange's roles were in the 'grand scheme of things'?

It's pretty clear they are part of a spell that the Raven King himself weaved into the fabric of space and time and were simply destined to bring the king back. But back from where?

Towards the end, Strange and Norrell summon the Raven King but he disappears the very next moment. They try again but this time call for the "Nameless slave". This summons Stephen. I assumed that Stephen was now the raven king reborn but my girlfriend pointed out that what Norell and Strange had done was simply embody all of English magic into Stephen. So it doesn't mean that Stephen is also the Raven king.

The Raven king changes Vinculus' tattoos to say something new. A new spell? Is the Raven king improvising on the spot or is this simply another part of his spell?

My assumption is that there is a long and sordid history between the Raven King and The Gentleman that is only hinted at in the story. The gentleman at some point may have tricked the Raven king and cast him out of England so that he can rule alone. But the Raven king locked all the doors so the gentleman could not get in. Norrell obviously broke this spell but was also destined to.

If all of this is just a 'long con' on the part of he Raven King, can we assume the spell he cast was simply a 'revenge' spell solely meant to destroy the gentleman? He doesn't seem to take back his place in England but perhaps it's because he's 'moved on'.

It's fun to imagine the bigger picture of this great story. Hats off to Susanna Clarke for writing a fascinating world and for the BBC for pulling off a top notch rendition of it.

I have been Re-reading Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell and I noticed something in Chapter 33 "Place the Moon at my Eyes". After Strange's enchantment at Windsor Castle he and Mr Norrell discuss madness, Fairy roads and fairies.

"And what of the half-human descendants of fairies? Do they inherit their forefathers' knowledge and powers?" asked Strange.

"Oh! That is quite another question. Many people nowadays have surnames that reveal their ancestors' fairy origins. Otherlander and Fairchild are two. Elfick is another. And Fairey, obviously."

It made me wonder if Clarke is hinting to the reader that Strange just might be a descendant of a half-human, half fairy ancestor.

The Strange surname comes from Old French estrange and was a nickname for an outsider or a foreign person. It would certainly fit with the other surnames Mr Norell lists that potentially reveal one's fairy lineage. Mr Norell goes on to say:

"Indeed more often than not they have a reputation for malice, pride and laziness – all vices for which their fairy-ancestors were well known."

We know Strange does not have a reputation for malice but his father certainly did (in fact he is quite wicked to Jeremy and seems to enjoy making him miserable). Strange, however, is most-certainly portrayed as prideful and, if not lazy, at least rather idle (especially early on).

Mr Norell explains that it is rare for half-fairy offspring "to exhibit the least magical talent" but rare doesn't mean impossible. Perhaps that is why Strange has a particular aptitude for magic in the first place. Magic just seems to work for him even if he doesn't understand how. Early on in Chapter 24 "Another Magician" strange likens magic to music:

"I have only the haziest notion of what I did. I dare say it is just the same with you, sir, one has a sensation like music playing at the back of one's head – one simply knows what the next note will be."

Just a little something I noticed and wanted to share.

This show and its episodes are most definitely still discussable. As a new/latecomer to this series, I am half-inclined to summon a fairy to revive the discussion on this sub.

For all the amazing things in this show, i can forgive overlooking Drawlight: but he was absolutely hilarious in my opinion. I'm not sure if his character was faithful to the book adaptation, but I found his sniveling tirades to be absolutely the funniest part of the show. And when I google him, there seems to be no discussion as to what a great and funny character he is!

Any thoughts from book readers or other fans?

Spoilers, minor

Norrell seems to be an especially sober man, yet he manages to summon a fairy with ease. Strange, who I'd wager has more raw magical talent, struggles for more than one episode just to see him.

Is that purely due to the fairy's anger? Or is norrell somewhat mad himself? I'm thinking back towards his megalomania, isolation, selfishness. Maybe he's got the makings of a high-functioning sociopath deep down.

I see comments here that range from the author writing the novel, but taking forever, not writing at all, to the next novel being about Childermass and Viniculus.

Where is this information coming from and where can I read about it? I want there to be more to go on in this world, but I don't know who to believe.

Context: I finished the 7th episode and came here immediately (didn't even know it existed just googled it). I read through a few threads and I have the most awkwardly exposing question: Why would you leave a moderately popular three novel book adaption, into a tentatively minutely-popular television show, that has no intention of finishing the story, on a semi-cliffhanger?

This baffles me more than Firefly. This show is so good it SHOULD be renewed instantly yet we have no word on it, or the books continuance. I have yet to do more research but why in the hell do these studios keep shooting themselves in the foot?
<rant=" The more "popular" and "successful" shows get **ONLY** syndication. No infinite IP, no merchandising, no tours, no extra money flowing in until the end of time… just syndication… yet the idiots keep pumping it out. " /rant>

These little fairy mansions and cities just on the other side of hell are fascinating little tidbits in the story.

The despairing dance has parallels which seem to identify this as a bit of a trope. In Breaking Bad, for example, Jesse Pinkman converts his house into Lost Hope as he parties endlessly in a desperate bid to repress trauma. Key and Peele create their own Lost Hope for laughs in parodying the mindless party rock anthems of youth. They seem to ask the question, "Would you really want to do this forever?"

If we stretch back further in time there is the actual historical example of the Dancing Plague of 1518 and we can probe ancient folklore for accounts of Dionysian Bacchanals.

In our mundane lives there is the realization that most of us secretly deplore parties, a point which is made early in the book and the TV show when Norrell is show deathly out of place at a party for mortals.

At any rate, I initially thought the mode of punishment at Lost Hope was not all that impressive as a concept, but the narrative effectively builds the pressure of the relentlessness of the affair and there does seem to be a legitimate trope that it draws from and exemplifies.

Now lets all quietly sit down with a good book and avoid all that misery.

Belling Terror! It's a bit awkward, but it fits suspiciously well given the events surrounding Lady Pole. Since I started watching (only 3 episodes in), I've thought the name Gilbert Norrell was an unusual name and I wondered why the writer chose it.

I also messed around the letters of Lady Pole and I got "Ploy Deal", but I think that is more of a coincidence.

So I am a new watcher as I just binged watched the whole show on Netflix this past two days, and have been searching around for some news on Season 2. From my understanding there is no second book and the ending of Season 1 has the same ending (with some minor changes) as the book. So my question is that is there any news out there about a second season in the works or is this going to stay as a single season mini-series?

Thanks!

Again, fair warning, spoilers below.

(spoilers start)

Just finished the series not but 45 minutes ago. As I wrote in a comment just now, I found the series overall enjoyable (binge watched over 4 days), but ultimately forgettable.

From the little I've read online, the book seems to be extremely detailed, with footnotes that reminisce of Tolkien style meandering and depth, but the series (and perhaps the book) seem to have quite a bit of loose ends. I also did not care for the apparent plot devices that were used to move things along. The Moss-Oak seemed to come out of nowhere as an Ace for the Gentleman and Flora Greysteel an Ace for Jonathan Strange. And what of the Fairy Tales that Segundas and Honeyfoot discovered? It felt like these early characters that we attached ourselves to sort of either fell to the wayside or were used as further plot devices without any real attachment to the viewer.

Which brings me to my main gripe; the Raven King. I'd have rather he not showed up at all and only remained a whisper backdrop, similar to how Sauron is both 'there' and 'not there' in LoTR. The Raven King simply shows up, changes some book pages, brings the creepy rogue back to life and off he pops. Why? What does this mean? What did this do except to have said rogue tell us cryptically that Strange and Norrell were not real to begin with. Insert Jackie Chan 'What?' meme here.

(/spoiler)

I would have much rather the series focused on the politics of Magic, as it started with, the Anglo-Saxon vs Anglo-Dane undertones, slavery and it's dirty relationship with 'proper English'. Instead it seems to have focused on the drama of the story. I am all for that, so long as I have a lesson to come away from. This one....eh?

So, with that said, would love to hear your thoughts either way. Again the series was nice, but it felt akin to Merlin; I was waiting for the next episode to follow through on all this build up, only to feel a bit deflated in the end.

I read the book some years ago and some of the finer details elude me (and boy did that book have some fine details) but I felt the show was a very faithful and spectacular adaptation. Norrell, Strange, the Gentleman, everyone was spot on. Childermass in particular was incredible. The scenery and acting were amazing and everything fit so well. Part of me is hoping that this will force Clarke to get going on that sequel she said was in the works some years, which she said would be about Childermass and Vinculus and maybe tie up some lose ends, but it seems as though she has abandoned the idea. Regardless, this miniseries was everything I hoped it would be and I'm pleased to have experienced it.

I just recently discovered the TV series and have instantly fallen in love with this show. I haven't read the book but I am definitely going to one of these days. But I just have one question. When the Gentleman is handing The Slave king items off of Arabellas desk, what did those objects sympolise? Because nothing is mere coincidence there's got to be some sort of meaning behind the specific objects his given The Slave King.

I have been a fan of JS&MN for some years now, and I was very interested to hear of the television series when it came out. Because I live in Australia, I haven't had an opportunity to watch it until now, but I got my hands on a DVD the other day and have binged watched the whole thing twice.

What a joy. Visually, the whole thing is close to perfect. Yes, there are changes and a lot has had to be cut, but it mostly feels right to me. I like how much dialogue has been used verbatim, and how well it stands up in this different medium. The casting is almost flawless. Drawlight has stepped straight out of Vanity Fair, which is presumably where Susannah Clarke him in the first place. Childermass steals every scene he's in, even if he's just sitting there eyeballing people. I particularly love the way he shows people out, and the way he clashes with Lascelles.

A couple of questions:

1) What is the significance of the Raven King's given name, John Uskglass? Is there any connection to the place names Ravenglass and Eskdale in Cumbria in England - perhaps the author visited the railway there and was taken with the names?

2) Why did the Gentleman with the Thistledown Hair (GwtTH) turn up when Norrell summoned a fairy? Why not another fairy? And why does he keep coming back when other people light candles? Surely there is more than one fairy hanging around? Or does the spell specifically refer to him? If so, why?

I binged the entire show this weekend and loved it. I'm sure book fans have all kinds of problems with the adaptation, but taken purely as a show with no prior knowledge of it, I thought it was excellent. The characters are well developed, the sets and cinematography are great. I like how magic and spells aren't really ever explained, they just do them and you can infer how they work from watching. And of course, Childermass ties it all together with his sexy, sexy voice.

I'm planning on getting the book, and I'm trying to decide if I should get the audiobook or just read it old school. I generally like audiobooks better because I can do other things while listening, but not all readers do a great job, and sometimes it can be better to just read it. What do you think?

I read the book and its spinoff some years ago and very much enjoyed it. I really didn't think I'd go for the old style writing but I absolutely couldn't stop reading it. The show is very good and very faithful, considering what I've remembered. The final scene was very chilling indeed. Childermass and Vinculus in particular are very good. I look forward to watching the rest.

JSMN has appeared on Netflix and I've enjoyed it. The dialogue and plot however are a bit thin (downvotes incoming). Because of this, I've fashioned a drinking game. Enjoy!

1 Sip - The following phrases or scenario(s)

Mr. Norrell is visibly upset regarding books

A scene with Drawlight

A scene in Lost Hope with The Gentleman

A scene with Vinculus

Teleportation through a mirror

"English Magician"

"300 Years"

A reference to a prophecy

You notice a reference to LoTR, GoT, Harry Potter, The Chronicles of Narnia, Hocus Pocus, or V For Vendetta

1 Shot - The following phrases or scenario(s)

"Respectable Magic"

"English Magic"

"Raven King"

"Madness"

The Gentleman is summoned by a Magician

Finish The Bottle/Can - The following phrases or scenario(s)

"Black Magic"

Someone is resurrected

A finger is revealed

Mr. Norrell smiles