Random thought about the scholarship in JSMN Universe

[pretty_plant]

I crossposted this on my Tumblr: https://www.tumblr.com/sleepy-delusional-dreamer/775058725019009024/i-am-super-normal-about-jsmn-so-while-reading-some?source=share

I am super normal about JSMN so while reading some write-ups on Great man theory on the Ask Historian subreddit, John Uskglass just came unbidden to my mind.

The link to the thread that I read: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1i2n53a/how_valid_is_the_great_man_theory_of_history/

I am in fact very ignorant about this but I was wondering whether this could apply to John Uskglass and that later historians would talk more about smaller magicians, lords, common people during his reign to explain the rise of magic during such a time. Those historians would explain that while Uskglass certainly had made his influence, the change in Northern England during that period was not entirely due to him but to numerous other factors.

In JSMN, Uskglass just lurked over the entire narrative so I can kinda imagine some 20th or 21st century historians would argue that he was in fact not that great.

Addition to the Tumblr post:

There has been lately a rise in research regarding marginalized people and the untouched parts of history (for example, sex) and while the scholarship in JSMN, true to the time period, mainly focus on the elite and the great who were predominantly male (John Uskglass and powerful magician)s. Catherine of Winchester, being female, stood out but she knew Latin so I am inclined to believe if not nobility, she had to come from a relatively privileged background). Many scholars are inclined to attribute many things to Uskglass's influences while the only one who does not (Gilbert Norrell) only does it because he hates even though in his heart, he probably attributes everything (both bad and good) to Uskglass.

So I am already imagining that many late 19th century scholars would apply Great man theory in their discussion of Uskglass and that 20th century scholars would take a different view towards this and just point out the fact that Uskglass's rise was due to various factors and aided by many people and how he was not the sole driving force to some of the changes in his time period.

Comments

[logonaut]

When 20th century scholars "dethrone" John Uskglass (so to speak), it may lead to his statues taken down in various cities - especially those where the local population has for a long time considered him an oppressor. Just like it's been playing out in the US over the last few years. But even when taken down, a John Usgklass statue exhibits some magic. For example, it turns into a flock of ravens. Or maybe something more sinister.

Also, all those statues, throughout history, exhibited a curious feature: pigeons didn't poop on them. The local raven population maintained a pigeon-free airspace above the statues.

[regshoe]

I like this idea! I suppose these scholars might argue that, although Uskglass created the system of English magic, it was the existing social, cultural and political environment of the early twelfth century that enabled him to do so successfully. Or emphasise the various roles other people played in bringing Uskglass to power and keeping him there?...

[pretty_plant]

Yeah! And that can be argued not just for the 12th century but also the 19th century! Is the return of English magic entirely due to Uskglass's spell or can it also be attributed to the war against the France and the changing political climate of the time?

There can be so many possibilities in what the historians would argue about.

Clarke is currently writing a book set in alternative modern day Newcastle and I keep imaging what kind of new fun scholarship she will include in that book about Uskglass, Norrell and Strange. I think nowadays it is generally not recommended to read any history works about medieval times written in the early 20th century and prior because of how erroneous the works are (such as the idea that the Middle Ages were the Dark Ages without barely any innovation or development and absolutely disappointing compared to the enlightened Roman times). So I can already imagine that by the late 20th century, most of the scholarship in JSMN would be considered outdated with historians and magicians arguing against the validity of Strange and Norrell's statements. There has been a huge change in medieval study with myths debunked so the possibilities are endless.

[regshoe]

Clarke is currently writing a book set in alternative modern day Newcastle

:O I don't think I knew that, how exciting! Yeah, lots to speculate about there. And that's a good point about the likelihood of the views of the Middle Ages in JSMN being inaccurate in-universe, and that being criticised...

[pretty_plant]

The information is here: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/25/books/susanna-clarke-strange-norrell-sequel-interview.html.

She is working on two books, one set in JSMN-world modern day Newcastle (Merowdis's story is supposedly a strand from that) and one set in Bradford during the 1840s. She did not explain more as she was unsure whether she would be able to finish them but I hope she will be able to.


I hope Merowdis will get further mentioned in that Newcastle book but considering how the ladies of Grace Adieu barely figure in JSMNN, that is probably unlikely.

[regshoe]

Oh, cool, thank you for the link! Aww, I hope she is able to finish them.