{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/2206", "note": "Exported from an unofficial mirror of a public mailing list. Copyright in each message remains with the person who wrote it. Email addresses are obscured as `user at host`, the form the original archive published. This file was rebuilt from parsed fields rather than retained headers, so it is faithful in content but not byte-exact.", "addresses": "obscured as 'user at host'" }, "archive": "urth", "thread": { "id": 2206, "subject": "Little, Big", "messages": 5, "voices": 5, "first": "2000-04-25T18:02:31+00:00", "last": "2000-05-04T00:25:33+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Jim Jordan", "address": "jbjordan at gnt.net" }, "date": "2000-04-25T18:02:31+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Little, Big", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Hey, I know this is not the John Crowley discussion site, but I don't know\nif there is one.\n\tMantis suggested *Little, Big* as important for Wolfe, so I finally read\nit. And now I've got a question for those who have also slogged through it.\n\tIs this just a trivial and clever story, or is it a horror novel and a\ncautionary tale?\n\tSpoilers follow after a suitable gap.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\tTaken at face value, this novel seems to be the opposite of *Great Work of\nTime.* In that earlier novella, Crowley definitely provides a cautionary\ntale. The only valid world is THIS one, warts and all, and if any limited\nhuman being, or group of humans, were able to remake it, they would shrink\nand stifle it. Human destiny involves all the mess of THIS world, not\nrejecting it, or running from it. *Little, Big* winds us up in the same\nkind of world *Great Work of Time* shows as stifling and inhumane, a world\nof fairies. But it does so in a \"positive\" way, on the surface at least. In\n*Little, Big* it all just seems so wonderful....\n\tBut if so, then the novel is nothing but a clever plot, working through a\nrange of fantasy genres with a charming writing style, and winding up with\na \"explanation of what has been going on\" that is kind of neat and\ninteresting and all, but rather pointless. Not like real literature at all.\nAnd not like Crowley's other works.\n\tYet, if I look at it again, it looks at another level like a horror tale.\nI was left horrified, anyway. Thinking back, we have a bunch of kooks who\nare enthralled by theosophical nonsense, who want to live in unreality.\nThen in a later generation we have a bunch of drug-abusers (Mouse, Daily\nAlice, Sophie), who seem to be led further into this labyrinth. The last\ngeneration seems to have lost all moorings. In the final act, the main\ncharacters are losing their memories, and it all becomes a kind of\ndrug-dream. They become completely two-dimensional, cards in a special\ntarot deck. Read this way, it is very much a cautionary tale, and along the\nsame lines as *Great Work of Time.* \n\tIt appears that the characters have progressively opened themselves up to\nmanipulation by forces that have no real love for humanity at all, a point\nmade here and there. The Christian-Humanist, or at least Christian-Gnostic\nelements found in Crowley's earlier works, are left behind as these\ngenerations move farther and farther into fantasy and futility, and lose\ntheir humanity.\n\tEven this: They keep thinking that the \"world within is larger than the\nworld without.\" This is presented as something that might well be true. But\nin fact, the world within is NOT larger, but far smaller. These people's\nlives are shrinking down, and so is their world. It only appears large to\nthem.\n\tIt all seemed quite horrible to me. I might think, \"Well, you're just\nreading this as a Christian humanist,\" but in the light of Crowley's\nearlier works, it appears to me that such a reaction is what he designed.\nDe-humanization seems to be a large theme with him, and no something he\nthinks is a good idea in anything else he has written. (Though I've not yet\nread any of the AEgypt quartet -- I'd rather wait until it's all done.)\n\tThus, while this is not a Crowley discussion list, I thought it might be\ngood to bring it up here, since Wolfe evidently thinks highly of Crowley's\nwork and alludes to it. Anyone want to point me to a good analysis of this\nbook? Anyone want to agree, disagree, or show me what I've missed? The\nnovel seems extremely trivial to me, unless it is really a cleverly\ndisguised horror tale.\n\nNutria" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Alice Turner", "address": "akt at attglobal.net" }, "date": "2000-04-26T21:20:10+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Little, Big", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Like Grandfather Trout, I must rise to the fly.\n\nThe Rat wrote (and I have snipped a good deal; I was going to snip all and start from scratch, but I can't):" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "But if so, then the novel is nothing but a clever plot, working through a\nrange of fantasy genres with a charming writing style, and winding up with\na \"explanation of what has been going on\" that is kind of neat and\ninteresting and all, but rather pointless. Not like real literature at all.\nAnd not like Crowley's other works." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "None of JC's works is much like the others (except for the AEgypt series, which is, after all, a series). There is a certain thematic relationship between ENGINE SUMMER and LB, but it's not all that apparent." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Yet, if I look at it again, it looks at another level like a horror tale.\nI was left horrified, anyway. Thinking back, we have a bunch of kooks who\nare enthralled by theosophical nonsense, who want to live in unreality.\nThen in a later generation we have a bunch of drug-abusers (Mouse, Daily\nAlice, Sophie), who seem to be led further into this labyrinth. The last\ngeneration seems to have lost all moorings. In the final act, the main\ncharacters are losing their memories, and it all becomes a kind of\ndrug-dream. They become completely two-dimensional, cards in a special\ntarot deck. Read this way, it is very much a cautionary tale, and along the\nsame lines as *Great Work of Time.* " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "GWoT is mantis's subject, and I leave it to him. The \"bunch of kooks\" is that, of course, but they are also spell-bound and part fairy. (I hope you studied the geneological chart; it's of some importance.) Smokey does not believe in fairies, but he lives amongst them and is even more spell-bound than they, for he cannot leave the pentacle to which he has been sentenced, though he does not know this, and neither (really) do we till the end, though the clues are at least as clear as those in most detective novels. He is Tam Lin, if you will.\n\nDon't be so priggish about drugs. George smokes weed and hash, fairly harmless substances not unknown, I'll warrant, to many members of this list. LB is nothing if not a book of the Sixties, and a comment on that time (also ES is a MUCH druggier book). Sophie is not drugged but under a spell; her sleep has been stolen by the changeling child, Lilac, so that she is in a near-coma much of the time without being able to sleep soundly. And Alice is not a drug user at all (oh, she may have inhaled once or twice, but who hasn't?). They are not losing their memories through drugs, they are being gathered in by the fairies and half-fairies for a purpose that you may well disapprove of but is certainly clearly presented. How you can call it a cautionary tale, I don't understand. Caution against what? The end of the world? Some of the books it borrows from, and I think especially of Charles Kingsley's -Water Babies-, were indeed cautionary tales, but this one is not, IMO." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "It appears that the characters have progressively opened themselves up to\nmanipulation by forces that have no real love for humanity at all, a point\nmade here and there. The Christian-Humanist, or at least Christian-Gnostic\nelements found in Crowley's earlier works, are left behind as these\ngenerations move farther and farther into fantasy and futility, and lose\ntheir humanity." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "JC did not invent the heartless fairy, he has just used the old idea in a provocative and original way. The fairies are manipulating the Drinkwater clan (including dozens and dozens of cousins) to keep themselves alive. The half-fairy sisters use Smokey to father their children. I think that Alice really does love him (so does Sophie in a distracted, off-hand, sisterly way), but the fairy side of her entraps and uses him. Your mistake, I think, is to think of JC as a Christian. A Gnostic he certainly is, no doubt about it (when you get to the AEgypt novels it is no longer subtext), but, though he was raised a Catholic, I doubt that he is a Christian now, at least as you interpret it. " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Even this: They keep thinking that the \"world within is larger than the\nworld without.\" This is presented as something that might well be true. But\nin fact, the world within is NOT larger, but far smaller. These people's\nlives are shrinking down, and so is their world. It only appears large to\nthem." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "This is difficult to answer. In one sense, you are right. The world is winding to an end, and only the chosen will be saved (a very Gnostic notion). The fairies (Pharisees) have chosen. Smokey solves the great riddle of the orrery, which makes the universe tick, but he does it too late. I really dislike the Eigenblick subplot, just like Robert Ludlam. But look: Sylvie really is Titania. Fred really is a dryad. Smokey really is a saint, and he believes he has led a good and happy life. I believe it too. We may have made a mess of one world, but another will survive.These are joyous things as well as nostalgic and melancholic. I am suprised that you did not pick up Smokey's saint-like nature (this being your absolutely favorite approach). When Smokey accepts Alice's childhood in his Gladstone bag, he, in a sense, takes on the whole burden of humanity. He lays it down just before he dies--like Moses, he cannot reach the promised land. But, though this is sad, it is also quite won!\n!\nderful, as sacrifice is often seen to be wonderful." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "It all seemed quite horrible to me. I might think, \"Well, you're just\nreading this as a Christian humanist,\" but in the light of Crowley's\nearlier works, it appears to me that such a reaction is what he designed.\nDe-humanization seems to be a large theme with him, and no something he\nthinks is a good idea in anything else he has written. (Though I've not yet\nread any of the AEgypt quartet -- I'd rather wait until it's all done.)\nThus, while this is not a Crowley discussion list, I thought it might be\ngood to bring it up here, since Wolfe evidently thinks highly of Crowley's\nwork and alludes to it. Anyone want to point me to a good analysis of this\nbook? Anyone want to agree, disagree, or show me what I've missed? The\nnovel seems extremely trivial to me, unless it is really a cleverly\ndisguised horror tale." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I do not think it is a trivial book, and I believe the majority of critics agree with me. Although, I admit, I haven't read any of them! Still, I do know there was a *lot* written about this book, and it shouldn't be hard to find. You also, I think, quite miss the lattitude given by the American Gothic tradition, which very much includes Faulkner, and virtually always includes a sense of generational decrepitude. As in most big, baggy, original works (and I'm glad they're still being written), there are many gestures to the past. In this one, it is the Victorian fairy tradition (very much including the illustrations of Rackham and Dulac, as well as the many books alluded to), theosophy and \"spiritism,\" as you say (and you are surely aware of the conections among these) as well as Hudson River Gothic.\n\nMantis and I have written (seperately) a series of articles, great and small, about JC. The only one on LB was by me, in the NYRSF, and it was a small one, even cutish, with a cute little sidebar. It was NOT a critical appraisal of the book (which we would like to have, actually, and a discussion here might lead up to). Anyone who wants it/them, however, please e-mail me, and I'll send it as an attachment pronto. (Let me know if you have a Mac or are still in Word 3, etc. etc.; I have a translation device).\n\nIf you want to take this further, we should probably take it to e-mail, unless the list votes to keep it here. I know that mantis would join an e-mail discussion, though, and maybe others would too.\n\n-alga" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Jack and Melissa Holcomb", "address": "jackandmel at socket.net" }, "date": "2000-04-27T00:39:01+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Little, Big", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I'm fascinated. I have no problem with continuing to read this discussion\non the Urth list.\n\nJack" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Like Grandfather Trout, I must rise to the fly.\n\nThe Rat wrote (and I have snipped a good deal; I was going to snip all and\nstart from scratch, but I can't):" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "But if so, then the novel is nothing but a clever plot, working through\na\nrange of fantasy genres with a charming writing style, and winding up\nwith\na \"explanation of what has been going on\" that is kind of neat and\ninteresting and all, but rather pointless. Not like real literature at\nall.\nAnd not like Crowley's other works." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "None of JC's works is much like the others (except for the AEgypt series,\nwhich is, after all, a series). There is a certain thematic relationship\nbetween ENGINE SUMMER and LB, but it's not all that apparent." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Yet, if I look at it again, it looks at another level like a horror\ntale.\nI was left horrified, anyway. Thinking back, we have a bunch of kooks\nwho\nare enthralled by theosophical nonsense, who want to live in unreality.\nThen in a later generation we have a bunch of drug-abusers (Mouse, Daily\nAlice, Sophie), who seem to be led further into this labyrinth. The last\ngeneration seems to have lost all moorings. In the final act, the main\ncharacters are losing their memories, and it all becomes a kind of\ndrug-dream. They become completely two-dimensional, cards in a special\ntarot deck. Read this way, it is very much a cautionary tale, and along\nthe\nsame lines as *Great Work of Time.*" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "GWoT is mantis's subject, and I leave it to him. The \"bunch of kooks\" is\nthat, of course, but they are also spell-bound and part fairy. (I hope you\nstudied the geneological chart; it's of some importance.) Smokey does not\nbelieve in fairies, but he lives amongst them and is even more spell-bound\nthan they, for he cannot leave the pentacle to which he has been sentenced,\nthough he does not know this, and neither (really) do we till the end,\nthough the clues are at least as clear as those in most detective novels. He\nis Tam Lin, if you will.\n\nDon't be so priggish about drugs. George smokes weed and hash, fairly\nharmless substances not unknown, I'll warrant, to many members of this list." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "LB is nothing if not a book of the Sixties, and a comment on that time (also\nES is a MUCH druggier book). Sophie is not drugged but under a spell; her\nsleep has been stolen by the changeling child, Lilac, so that she is in a\nnear-coma much of the time without being able to sleep soundly. And Alice is\nnot a drug user at all (oh, she may have inhaled once or twice, but who\nhasn't?). They are not losing their memories through drugs, they are being\ngathered in by the fairies and half-fairies for a purpose that you may well\ndisapprove of but is certainly clearly presented. How you can call it a\ncautionary tale, I don't understand. Caution against what? The end of the\nworld? Some of the books it borrows from, and I think especially of Charles\nKingsley's -Water Babies-, were indeed cautionary tales, but this one is\nnot, IMO." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "It appears that the characters have progressively opened themselves up\nto\nmanipulation by forces that have no real love for humanity at all, a\npoint\nmade here and there. The Christian-Humanist, or at least\nChristian-Gnostic\nelements found in Crowley's earlier works, are left behind as these\ngenerations move farther and farther into fantasy and futility, and lose\ntheir humanity." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "JC did not invent the heartless fairy, he has just used the old idea in a\nprovocative and original way. The fairies are manipulating the Drinkwater\nclan (including dozens and dozens of cousins) to keep themselves alive. The\nhalf-fairy sisters use Smokey to father their children. I think that Alice\nreally does love him (so does Sophie in a distracted, off-hand, sisterly\nway), but the fairy side of her entraps and uses him. Your mistake, I think,\nis to think of JC as a Christian. A Gnostic he certainly is, no doubt about\nit (when you get to the AEgypt novels it is no longer subtext), but, though\nhe was raised a Catholic, I doubt that he is a Christian now, at least as\nyou interpret it." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Even this: They keep thinking that the \"world within is larger than the\nworld without.\" This is presented as something that might well be true." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "But" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "in fact, the world within is NOT larger, but far smaller. These people's\nlives are shrinking down, and so is their world. It only appears large\nto\nthem." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "This is difficult to answer. In one sense, you are right. The world is\nwinding to an end, and only the chosen will be saved (a very Gnostic\nnotion). The fairies (Pharisees) have chosen. Smokey solves the great riddle\nof the orrery, which makes the universe tick, but he does it too late. I\nreally dislike the Eigenblick subplot, just like Robert Ludlam. But look:" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Sylvie really is Titania. Fred really is a dryad. Smokey really is a saint,\nand he believes he has led a good and happy life. I believe it too. We may\nhave made a mess of one world, but another will survive.These are joyous\nthings as well as nostalgic and melancholic. I am suprised that you did not\npick up Smokey's saint-like nature (this being your absolutely favorite\napproach). When Smokey accepts Alice's childhood in his Gladstone bag, he,\nin a sense, takes on the whole burden of humanity. He lays it down just\nbefore he dies--like Moses, he cannot reach the promised land. But, though\nthis is sad, it is also quite won!" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "derful, as sacrifice is often seen to be wonderful." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "It all seemed quite horrible to me. I might think, \"Well, you're just\nreading this as a Christian humanist,\" but in the light of Crowley's\nearlier works, it appears to me that such a reaction is what he\ndesigned.\nDe-humanization seems to be a large theme with him, and no something he\nthinks is a good idea in anything else he has written. (Though I've not\nyet\nread any of the AEgypt quartet -- I'd rather wait until it's all done.)\nThus, while this is not a Crowley discussion list, I thought it might be\ngood to bring it up here, since Wolfe evidently thinks highly of\nCrowley's\nwork and alludes to it. Anyone want to point me to a good analysis of\nthis\nbook? Anyone want to agree, disagree, or show me what I've missed? The\nnovel seems extremely trivial to me, unless it is really a cleverly\ndisguised horror tale." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I do not think it is a trivial book, and I believe the majority of critics\nagree with me. Although, I admit, I haven't read any of them! Still, I do\nknow there was a *lot* written about this book, and it shouldn't be hard to\nfind. You also, I think, quite miss the lattitude given by the American\nGothic tradition, which very much includes Faulkner, and virtually always\nincludes a sense of generational decrepitude. As in most big, baggy,\noriginal works (and I'm glad they're still being written), there are many\ngestures to the past. In this one, it is the Victorian fairy tradition (very\nmuch including the illustrations of Rackham and Dulac, as well as the many\nbooks alluded to), theosophy and \"spiritism,\" as you say (and you are surely\naware of the conections among these) as well as Hudson River Gothic.\n\nMantis and I have written (seperately) a series of articles, great and\nsmall, about JC. The only one on LB was by me, in the NYRSF, and it was a\nsmall one, even cutish, with a cute little sidebar. It was NOT a critical\nappraisal of the book (which we would like to have, actually, and a\ndiscussion here might lead up to). Anyone who wants it/them, however, please\ne-mail me, and I'll send it as an attachment pronto. (Let me know if you\nhave a Mac or are still in Word 3, etc. etc.; I have a translation device).\n\nIf you want to take this further, we should probably take it to e-mail,\nunless the list votes to keep it here. I know that mantis would join an\ne-mail discussion, though, and maybe others would too.\n\n-alga" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "works" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Adam Stephanides", "address": "adamsteph at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2000-05-01T09:02:02+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Little, Big", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "alga wrote:\nNo, I won't argue this. The orrery business is hard to figure, especially considering that Hawksquill\nhas one too." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "But Hawksquill's orrery is of a Ptolemaic universe, and therefore\ndoesn't run by itself. Smoky's if of a Newtonian universe, and so\ndoes. (At least so Hawksquill says.)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Also, I think the writing on how the house fares\nafterwards is very lovely. (I see that Rostrum agrees on the last.)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I agree too. One of the best evocations of nostalgia and loss I've\nencountered anywhere. " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Alice does not disapprove of Smoky's adultery because his task is to father children for the fairies." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "But Alice is very upset when she thinks that Smoky has fathered Sophie's\nchild (because this somehow deprives her of her starring role in the\nTale? or because it indicates that Sophie, not Alice, is the bride\npicked out by the fairies for Smoky?). It's only when she learns he\nhasn't that she becomes tolerant of the adultery." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Sophie has been put out of commission by Lilac and anything to get her to reproduce is acceptable." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Don't you have it backwards? The adultery took place before Lilac\nexisted. Or is there a later adultery that I missed." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "[on the war:]\nThis is the part of the novel I disliked most. It seems to be a general Sixties-ish disgruntlement\nwith how things were going. Thoughts here would be appreciated." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The civil war between Eigenblick and his opponents does seem to be a\ncommon trope in last 60s and 70s SF (ObWolfe: Hour of Trust, Paul's\nTreehouse). The war between fairies and humans, which has been going on\nfor a thousand years (\"The Worm Turneed,\" Book Four, Chap. One), is more\nobscure. I can't think of any precedents offhand in myth, legend, or\ngenre fiction. Can anybody?\n\nThe blighting of New York City during Auberon's stay seems to reflect\nthe state of New York City in the 1970s, the \"Ford to City: Drop Dead\"\nera.\n\n--Adam" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "David Duffy", "address": "davidd at qimr.edu.au" }, "date": "2000-05-04T00:25:33+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Little, Big", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Talking about Dunsany reminded me of the fate of one of the characters in\n_The curse of the wise woman_, who may get the choice (he chooses the\ndownward path) of dying and going to heaven, or instead going to\nTir'nan'ogh. I think some Irish beliefs offer Heaven/Hell or just fading\naway here. \n \nDavid Duffy. " } ] } ] }