Little, Big
The Urth list — 5 messages, 5 voices, 25 Apr 2000
https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/2206

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.

==============================================================================

Jim Jordan — 25 Apr 2000, 18:02

Hey, I know this is not the John Crowley discussion site, but I don't know
if there is one.
	Mantis suggested *Little, Big* as important for Wolfe, so I finally read
it. And now I've got a question for those who have also slogged through it.
	Is this just a trivial and clever story, or is it a horror novel and a
cautionary tale?
	Spoilers follow after a suitable gap.







	Taken at face value, this novel seems to be the opposite of *Great Work of
Time.* In that earlier novella, Crowley definitely provides a cautionary
tale. The only valid world is THIS one, warts and all, and if any limited
human being, or group of humans, were able to remake it, they would shrink
and stifle it. Human destiny involves all the mess of THIS world, not
rejecting it, or running from it. *Little, Big* winds us up in the same
kind of world *Great Work of Time* shows as stifling and inhumane, a world
of fairies. But it does so in a "positive" way, on the surface at least. In
*Little, Big* it all just seems so wonderful....
	But if so, then the novel is nothing but a clever plot, working through a
range of fantasy genres with a charming writing style, and winding up with
a "explanation of what has been going on" that is kind of neat and
interesting and all, but rather pointless. Not like real literature at all.
And not like Crowley's other works.
	Yet, if I look at it again, it looks at another level like a horror tale.
I was left horrified, anyway. Thinking back, we have a bunch of kooks who
are enthralled by theosophical nonsense, who want to live in unreality.
Then in a later generation we have a bunch of drug-abusers (Mouse, Daily
Alice, Sophie), who seem to be led further into this labyrinth. The last
generation seems to have lost all moorings. In the final act, the main
characters are losing their memories, and it all becomes a kind of
drug-dream. They become completely two-dimensional, cards in a special
tarot deck. Read this way, it is very much a cautionary tale, and along the
same lines as *Great Work of Time.* 
	It appears that the characters have progressively opened themselves up to
manipulation by forces that have no real love for humanity at all, a point
made here and there. The Christian-Humanist, or at least Christian-Gnostic
elements found in Crowley's earlier works, are left behind as these
generations move farther and farther into fantasy and futility, and lose
their humanity.
	Even this: They keep thinking that the "world within is larger than the
world without." This is presented as something that might well be true. But
in fact, the world within is NOT larger, but far smaller. These people's
lives are shrinking down, and so is their world. It only appears large to
them.
	It all seemed quite horrible to me. I might think, "Well, you're just
reading this as a Christian humanist," but in the light of Crowley's
earlier works, it appears to me that such a reaction is what he designed.
De-humanization seems to be a large theme with him, and no something he
thinks is a good idea in anything else he has written. (Though I've not yet
read any of the AEgypt quartet -- I'd rather wait until it's all done.)
	Thus, while this is not a Crowley discussion list, I thought it might be
good to bring it up here, since Wolfe evidently thinks highly of Crowley's
work and alludes to it. Anyone want to point me to a good analysis of this
book? Anyone want to agree, disagree, or show me what I've missed? The
novel seems extremely trivial to me, unless it is really a cleverly
disguised horror tale.

Nutria

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alice Turner — 26 Apr 2000, 21:20
  follows, by subject match Jim Jordan

Like Grandfather Trout, I must rise to the fly.

The Rat wrote (and I have snipped a good deal; I was going to snip all and start from scratch, but I can't):

> But if so, then the novel is nothing but a clever plot, working through a
> range of fantasy genres with a charming writing style, and winding up with
> a "explanation of what has been going on" that is kind of neat and
> interesting and all, but rather pointless. Not like real literature at all.
> And not like Crowley's other works.

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.

> Yet, if I look at it again, it looks at another level like a horror tale.
> I was left horrified, anyway. Thinking back, we have a bunch of kooks who
> are enthralled by theosophical nonsense, who want to live in unreality.
> Then in a later generation we have a bunch of drug-abusers (Mouse, Daily
> Alice, Sophie), who seem to be led further into this labyrinth. The last
> generation seems to have lost all moorings. In the final act, the main
> characters are losing their memories, and it all becomes a kind of
> drug-dream. They become completely two-dimensional, cards in a special
> tarot deck. Read this way, it is very much a cautionary tale, and along the
> same lines as *Great Work of Time.* 

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.

Don'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.

> It appears that the characters have progressively opened themselves up to
> manipulation by forces that have no real love for humanity at all, a point
> made here and there. The Christian-Humanist, or at least Christian-Gnostic
> elements found in Crowley's earlier works, are left behind as these
> generations move farther and farther into fantasy and futility, and lose
> their humanity.

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. 

> Even this: They keep thinking that the "world within is larger than the
> world without." This is presented as something that might well be true. But
> in fact, the world within is NOT larger, but far smaller. These people's
> lives are shrinking down, and so is their world. It only appears large to
> them.

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!
!
derful, as sacrifice is often seen to be wonderful.

> It all seemed quite horrible to me. I might think, "Well, you're just
> reading this as a Christian humanist," but in the light of Crowley's
> earlier works, it appears to me that such a reaction is what he designed.
> De-humanization seems to be a large theme with him, and no something he
> thinks is a good idea in anything else he has written. (Though I've not yet
> read any of the AEgypt quartet -- I'd rather wait until it's all done.)
> Thus, while this is not a Crowley discussion list, I thought it might be
> good to bring it up here, since Wolfe evidently thinks highly of Crowley's
> work and alludes to it. Anyone want to point me to a good analysis of this
> book? Anyone want to agree, disagree, or show me what I've missed? The
> novel seems extremely trivial to me, unless it is really a cleverly
> disguised horror tale.

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.

Mantis 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).

If 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.

-alga

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jack and Melissa Holcomb — 27 Apr 2000, 00:39
  follows, by subject match Alice Turner

I'm fascinated.  I have no problem with continuing to read this discussion
on the Urth list.

Jack

> Like Grandfather Trout, I must rise to the fly.
> 
> The Rat wrote (and I have snipped a good deal; I was going to snip all and
> start from scratch, but I can't):

> > But if so, then the novel is nothing but a clever plot, working through
> > a
> > range of fantasy genres with a charming writing style, and winding up
> > with
> > a "explanation of what has been going on" that is kind of neat and
> > interesting and all, but rather pointless. Not like real literature at
> > all.
> > And not like Crowley's other works.

> 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.

> > Yet, if I look at it again, it looks at another level like a horror
> > tale.
> > I was left horrified, anyway. Thinking back, we have a bunch of kooks
> > who
> > are enthralled by theosophical nonsense, who want to live in unreality.
> > Then in a later generation we have a bunch of drug-abusers (Mouse, Daily
> > Alice, Sophie), who seem to be led further into this labyrinth. The last
> > generation seems to have lost all moorings. In the final act, the main
> > characters are losing their memories, and it all becomes a kind of
> > drug-dream. They become completely two-dimensional, cards in a special
> > tarot deck. Read this way, it is very much a cautionary tale, and along
> > the
> > same lines as *Great Work of Time.*

> 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.
> 
> Don'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.

> > It appears that the characters have progressively opened themselves up
> > to
> > manipulation by forces that have no real love for humanity at all, a
> > point
> > made here and there. The Christian-Humanist, or at least
> > Christian-Gnostic
> > elements found in Crowley's earlier works, are left behind as these
> > generations move farther and farther into fantasy and futility, and lose
> > their humanity.

> 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.

> > Even this: They keep thinking that the "world within is larger than the
> > world without." This is presented as something that might well be true.

But

> > in fact, the world within is NOT larger, but far smaller. These people's
> > lives are shrinking down, and so is their world. It only appears large
> > to
> > them.

> 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!

> derful, as sacrifice is often seen to be wonderful.

> > It all seemed quite horrible to me. I might think, "Well, you're just
> > reading this as a Christian humanist," but in the light of Crowley's
> > earlier works, it appears to me that such a reaction is what he
> > designed.
> > De-humanization seems to be a large theme with him, and no something he
> > thinks is a good idea in anything else he has written. (Though I've not
> > yet
> > read any of the AEgypt quartet -- I'd rather wait until it's all done.)
> > Thus, while this is not a Crowley discussion list, I thought it might be
> > good to bring it up here, since Wolfe evidently thinks highly of
> > Crowley's
> > work and alludes to it. Anyone want to point me to a good analysis of
> > this
> > book? Anyone want to agree, disagree, or show me what I've missed? The
> > novel seems extremely trivial to me, unless it is really a cleverly
> > disguised horror tale.

> 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.
> 
> Mantis 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).
> 
> If 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.
> 
> -alga

works

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Adam Stephanides — 01 May 2000, 09:02
  follows, by subject match Jack and Melissa Holcomb

> alga wrote:
> No, I won't argue this. The orrery business is hard to figure, especially considering that Hawksquill
> has one too.

But Hawksquill's orrery is of a Ptolemaic universe, and therefore
doesn't run by itself.  Smoky's if of a Newtonian universe, and so
does.  (At least so Hawksquill says.)

> Also, I think the writing on how the house fares
> afterwards is very lovely. (I see that Rostrum agrees on the last.)

I agree too.  One of the best evocations of nostalgia and loss I've
encountered anywhere. 

> Alice does not disapprove of Smoky's adultery because his task is to father children for the fairies.

But Alice is very upset when she thinks that Smoky has fathered Sophie's
child (because this somehow deprives her of her starring role in the
Tale? or because it indicates that Sophie, not Alice, is the bride
picked out by the fairies for Smoky?).  It's only when she learns he
hasn't that she becomes tolerant of the adultery.

> Sophie has been put out of commission by Lilac and anything to get her to reproduce is acceptable.

Don't you have it backwards?  The adultery took place before Lilac
existed.  Or is there a later adultery that I missed.

> [on the war:]
> This is the part of the novel I disliked most. It seems to be a general Sixties-ish disgruntlement
> with how things were going. Thoughts here would be appreciated.

The civil war between Eigenblick and his opponents does seem to be a
common trope in last 60s and 70s SF (ObWolfe: Hour of Trust, Paul's
Treehouse).  The war between fairies and humans, which has been going on
for a thousand years ("The Worm Turneed," Book Four, Chap. One), is more
obscure.  I can't think of any precedents offhand in myth, legend, or
genre fiction.  Can anybody?

The blighting of New York City during Auberon's stay seems to reflect
the state of New York City in the 1970s, the "Ford to City: Drop Dead"
era.

--Adam

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

David Duffy — 04 May 2000, 00:25
  follows, by subject match Adam Stephanides

Talking about Dunsany reminded me of the fate of one of the characters in
_The curse of the wise woman_, who may get the choice (he chooses the
downward path) of dying and going to heaven, or instead going to
Tir'nan'ogh.  I think some Irish beliefs offer Heaven/Hell or just fading
away here.  
 
David Duffy. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------