Crowley, then ...

Dan'l Danehy-Oakes · 28 Jul 2003, 16:11 · 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: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 09:11:49 -0700
Message-ID: <urth-v0307-3773 at digest.urth.net>
X-Urthmirror-Source: http://www.urth.net/urth/archives/v0307/3773.txt.shtml
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Alga,

Thanks -- this is probably the single most helpful response of the many thi=
s=20
(as always)
generous group has provided. As it happens, I'm _not_ up on Victorian=20
faery-lore; my
attitude towards such has always run in the general direction of Tolkien's,=20
who generally
loathed it: though I don't go as far as he does in thinking Shakespeare mad=
e=20
a travesty
of Faerie. The books of "fairy" stories (as opposed to fairy-stories) I was=20
given as a child
either annoyed or terrified me. I preferred the latter, and still do. My=20
taste wrt Faerie is
for the pre-Victorian, even pre-Elizabethan, style, a twilit and parlous=20
place, the Faerie
of "Tam Lin" and "Thomas the Rhymer."

>It would be interesting if you told us what you did not like. I can tell=20
>you
>that I did not like the Russell Eigenblick subplot, though I admit that he
>managed to fit it into the conclusion better than I expected.

Well, to tell the truth, there was nothing I did not like, or at least=20
nothing I
disliked. It was just that I was disappointed; after all the commendations=20
of
Crowley in general and _Little, Big_ in particular by -- well, especially b=
y=20
yourself
and Mantis, both of whose tastes I have come to respect very highly -- I was
expecting something blindingly revelatory, rather like the first time I rea=
d=20
_tBotNS_,
_The Silmarillion_, _The Moon is Down_, or _Carrion Comfort_. Instead I got
something ... pleasant but uncompelling.

The obvious point of comparison to Wolfe, I suppose, is that the writing is
quite dense in places -- _Little, Big_ took me quite a while to get through,
which was only compounded by its failing to grab me by the throat and make
me read it.

Shrug.

Certainly not enough to put me off Crowley, but enough to decide me not
to tackle the copy of _Aegypt_ that's been sitting on the shelves for I=20
don't
know how long. (Who was it that wanted a copy? We can talk.) _Especially_
if it's heavily dependent upon alchemy, a subject to which my general=20
reaction
has been "Life's just too short for this."

I think I'll try the collection, though. _Novelty_ I think.

--Blattid

_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 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