Little, Big

Alice Turner · 26 Apr 2000, 21:20 · from urth-v0028.mbox · original
This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.
From: "Alice Turner" <akt at attglobal.net>
Subject: (urth) Little, Big
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 21:20:10
Message-ID: <urth-v0028-0935 at digest.urth.net>
X-Urthmirror-Source: http://www.urth.net/urth/archives/v0028/0935.shtml
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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 al=
l.
> And not like Crowley's other works.

None of JC's works is much like the others (except for the AEgypt series, w=
hich is, after all, a series). There is a certain thematic relationship bet=
ween 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 t=
he
> same lines as *Great Work of Time.*=20

GWoT is mantis's subject, and I leave it to him. The "bunch of kooks" is th=
at, of course, but they are also spell-bound and part fairy. (I hope you st=
udied the geneological chart; it's of some importance.)  Smokey does not be=
lieve in fairies, but he lives amongst them and is even more spell-bound th=
an they, for he cannot leave the pentacle to which he has been sentenced, t=
hough he does not know this, and neither (really) do we till the end, thoug=
h 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 harml=
ess 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 E=
S is a MUCH druggier book). Sophie is not drugged but under a spell; her sl=
eep has been stolen by the changeling child, Lilac, so that she is in a nea=
r-coma much of the time without being able to sleep soundly. And Alice is n=
ot 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 gath=
ered in by the fairies and half-fairies for a purpose that you may well dis=
approve of but is certainly clearly presented. How you can call it a cautio=
nary 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 Kingsl=
ey'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 p=
rovocative and original way. The fairies are manipulating the Drinkwater cl=
an (including dozens and dozens of cousins) to keep themselves alive. The h=
alf-fairy sisters use Smokey to father their children. I think that Alice r=
eally 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, i=
s 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.=20

> 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. B=
ut
> 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 wind=
ing to an end, and only the chosen will be saved (a very Gnostic notion). T=
he fairies (Pharisees) have chosen. Smokey solves the great riddle of the o=
rrery, which makes the universe tick, but he does it too late. I really dis=
like the Eigenblick subplot, just like Robert Ludlam. But look: Sylvie real=
ly is Titania. Fred really is a dryad. Smokey really is a saint, and he bel=
ieves 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 we=
ll as nostalgic and melancholic. I am suprised that you did not pick up Smo=
key's saint-like nature (this being your absolutely favorite approach). Whe=
n Smokey accepts Alice's childhood in his Gladstone bag, he, in a sense, ta=
kes on the whole burden of humanity. He lays it down just before he dies--l=
ike Moses, he cannot reach the promised land. But, though this is sad, it i=
s 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 y=
et
> 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 k=
now 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 Got=
hic tradition, which very much includes Faulkner, and virtually always incl=
udes a sense of generational decrepitude. As in most big, baggy, original w=
orks (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 incl=
uding the illustrations of Rackham and Dulac, as well as the many books all=
uded to), theosophy and "spiritism," as you say (and you are surely aware o=
f the conections among these) as well as Hudson River Gothic.

Mantis and I have written (seperately) a series of articles, great and smal=
l, 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 apprai=
sal of the book (which we would like to have, actually, and a discussion he=
re 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, unl=
ess the list votes to keep it here. I know that mantis would join an e-mail=
 discussion, though, and maybe others would too.

-alga



*More Wolfe info & archive of this list at http://www.urth.net/urth/
An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net