Scholarship and Intellectualism

[Bracton]

Scholarship is a recurring theme in the novel, Norrell is the very portrait of a scholar, aesthetically at least. Although as Vinculus tells us, ‘all magicians lie, this one more than most’. Magic at the beginning of the novel is something to be studied, historically, philosophically, perhaps even scientifically. As the novel progresses and we’re introduced to practical magic, it is wrapped in the pages of the printed word, and even as Strange’s magic starts to step away from Norrell’s model, Strange attempts to write a book. Even at the end when Strange has seemingly transcended books, he breaks into Norrell’s library. Norrell, however, is a liar and seeks to remove book from circulation: two things a true scholar would never do.
However, the magic of faeries and the Raven King is not a magic of books, nor is (seemingly) the magic of Childermass. Towards the close of the book, the magic of Norrell and Strange is revealed to be little more than the throwing of paper aeroplanes in a drawing room and magic in its raw form seems to be beyond their comprehension. Indeed, at the climax, the Raven King eludes Strange and Norrell who are still surrounded (and eventually terrorised) by books. While Childermass, out on the moors meets John Uskglass and Stephen Black vanquishes a faerie.

Norrell and Strange become trivialised, little more than a rowing boat in the wide and gushing river of the magic which flows through England. What is the role of scholarship and intellectualism in the novel?

[Violet]

The way humans can get a (admittedly small) handle on something beyond human understanding?

More to the point, I think you have to remember that SC isn't writing a story not social commentary or philosophy. JS & MR are limited in what they can do not because SC wants to make a point but because its only natural for self taught magicains trying to recover a lost art will be limited.

[Bracton]

More to the point, I think you have to remember that SC isn't writing a story not social commentary or philosophy. JS & MR are limited in what they can do not because SC wants to make a point but because its only natural for self taught magicains trying to recover a lost art will be limited.

True enough, however the best fiction is often littered with social comment and Susanna Clarke went to Oxford and now lives in Cambridge. I was attempting to draw out one of the themes I saw in JS&MR for discussion. I had a long chat with a legal historian about the parallels between magical history and legal history. They have much the same feeling about them.

[Crucifer]

Norrell, however, is a liar and seeks to remove book from circulation: two things a true scholar would never do.

On the contrary, it's happened many times over the ages.

A scholar can never have an unbiased view of his or her subject. (S)He supports and upholds the view that he or she believes is the best. And He or she will often sabotage any efforts to undermine their view. We need look only to Isaac Newton to see an example of a scholar who lied: he did not invent calculus, yet claimed its invention (lied) and sabotaged the forgotten creators attempts to patent it first. He stole the patent application and wrote up his own.

[Bracton]

On the contrary, it's happened many times over the ages.

A scholar can never have an unbiased view of his or her subject. (S)He supports and upholds the view that he or she believes is the best. And He or she will often sabotage any efforts to undermine their view. We need look only to Isaac Newton to see an example of a scholar who lied: he did not invent calculus, yet claimed its invention (lied) and sabotaged the forgotten creators attempts to patent it first. He stole the patent application and wrote up his own.

Well yes, virtually all scholars do impose something of themselves on their work, even where there are attempting to provide a neutral account (Webber, Finnis) and they will attempt to defend, as robustly as possible, their own position. My point was that true scholarship is the pursuit of truth and knowledge and that scholarship is a moral endeavour to that effect – an ideal. Norrell, and Newton, fall short of that standard by quite some way.

I was not making the argument that all scholars have morally clean consciences when it comes to their ethics; but rather that the ideal scholar, the true scholar, does.

[Violet]

I guess Norrell falls way short of the ideal then :)

True enough, however the best fiction is often littered with social comment
I disagree, the best fiction presents internally consistent characters and society, this leads to social commentary in much the same way as the view outside your window, you can study it to create some reasonable commentary, but no one created it with commentary in mind.

The fact that the people who decide what is the truly classic literature like social commentary, and that they tend to over analyse everything until they've started finding kabbalic references probably encourages the view that great literature is social commentary.