Crowley, then ...

Dan'l Danehy-Oakes · 28 Jul 2003, 00:56 · from urth-v0307.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: "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" <katbarx at hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: (urth) Crowley, then ...
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2003 17:56:21 -0700
Message-ID: <urth-v0307-3760 at digest.urth.net>
X-Urthmirror-Source: http://www.urth.net/urth/archives/v0307/3760.txt.shtml
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Josh G quoted me and wrote ...

> > Can someone tell me what I've missed here?
>
>Which part don't you get?

Well, it isn't so much a matter of parts. I think I got most of the parts.=20
It's
the whole that is escaping me. Or, rather, as I asked: What's the point?

Perhaps my expectations were unreasonably high; I've been hearing the
praises of this writer and this book for many years from people I respect
highly, quite a few of them on this here particular list. And, often, in
context (like a recent post of yours about the proposed Wolfe symposium
-- more about that below) that leads me to expect material of Lupine
density and depth of meaning.

I guess that's what I just didn't see in _Little, Big_. I have nothing _bad_
to say about it: on the level of the sentence, it's as well written as a lot
of work by, say, Wolfe, Le Guin, and Delany -- which I regard as extremely
high prase. Above that level, I thought it an interesting story -- or, I=20
suppose,
Tale -- that Somehow never _quite_ caught on fire for me; never reached the
"Oh my God, I have to read one more chapter before I go to bed" level of
engagement. Now, I can reach that level of engagement in a number of ways;
the writers above generally achieve that. So does JK Rowling. _Perdido=20
Street
Station_ hit it about halfway through. Spinrad, for all his faults, manages=20
to
grab me from the beginning in most of his books (the others never do at=20
all).

Somehow, Crowley never did. And I feel certain that the fault lies not in=20
his
stars but in me; that I simply missed the level of the book at which the=20
real
engagement was available. But, having missed it, I simply can't tell you=20
what
it was that I missed.

Which probably doesn't help at all.

So ... I guess the question is, what is it about _Little, Big_ that earns i=
t=20
such
high praise among you highly intelligent folks? I feel like I just flunked=20
my IQ
test.

--Blattid

_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* =20
http://join.msn.com/?page=3Dfeatures/junkmail

--=20

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net