Little, Big

I know a few of us have been reading Crowley's Little, Big after hearing LG recommend it. I thought I'd start a thread for any feedback.

SPOILER ALERT

I just finished last night and I am still processing it a bit. I found I had to read it more slowly than my usual reading pace to accomodate his prose style (which is lovely).

I remember one little image where it describe either Smoky or Alice rolling over in bed and the cats sailing at the foot of the bed. I just loved the image because it is what cats do at the foot of a bed. Mine do.

I loved the use of all the earlier fairy tale/faery archtypes and naming Slyvie (forested), Auberon, Sophie (wisdom) and the last names, Meadow, Mouse, Drinkwater. They were evocative but not allegorical.

I found myself wondering afterward if part of why Harold Bloom praised it so much is because he seems obsessed with notions of mortality and immortality and if you don't or can't believe in some sort of afterlife the thought of being part of a tale is appealing- sort of related to the Anglo-Saxon idea of aftersinging.

I felt a little lost at times because so much goes unexplained but that is how Smoky and both Auberons feel so I was fine with that but I see how others might find it annoying.

Anyway I am rambling now.

LG you have read this multiple times. What brings you back to it?

I'm so glad you started this thread Maren. I started with a library copy and decided to buy a copy just so I could star the section about Smokey's education!
I haven't finished yet. I find it the type of story that needs to be read in a quiet room, in a nice comfy armchair with a throw quilt, where you can tuck your feet under you and have a cat curl up beside you.

I'll be back when I finish!

I just suggested we discuss this book, and then I find this thread. Cool!

Maren asks why I come back to it...it's just so unique, so true, yet so elusive. Every time I read it, I notice different things.

The fact that so much is "unexplained" (which I'm not sure I agree with) is what makes it more realistic, even tho it is fantasy. The more the characters just accept that weird things happen, the more they do. It's just like real life. Believe me, I am pagan. This book is a favourite of many in the pagan community because it describes accurately the joys and frustrations of working with mysterious energies that you aren't even sure are "really" there.

Besides that, I love the characters. Smoky & Auberon & Daily Alice & Aunt Cloud & August & Sophie &&&. They're all so cool. And the bittersweet ending. And the fact that it was the first "urban fantasy." Believe me, there was nothing like it out there when it was first published.

Lg, I agree that leaving things unexplained make it more like real life. I don't think it is a bad thing, but I would still say is not a novel that goes out of the way to connect the dots- I like that. I like a challenge. That's why I like Anglo-saxon and Medieval and Renaissance texts.

But to be fair, it certainly isn't spelled out who grandfather trout is or what Sylvie's been doing while she's gone or how Ariel learned her arts or what exactly happened to Russell Eigenblick. I know people who would be frustrated by that, I wouldn't recommend it to them.

On the flip side I felt like other things I intuited well in advance. I knew that you don't drop names like Auberon and Titania and not have them come into their rightful place by the end. For the last 50 pages or so I was waiting for it to happen. But that may not be fair of me I am good at guessing plots so it isn't often I am surprised by an ending and I don't think the point of this ending is surprise.

I don't think I've read other urban so it still had it's novelty to me.

I can see why it would appeal to pagans. In fact, I recommended it to a pagan friend when I was done.

On a broader note when you talk about the frustration of not being sure something is "really" there. That I find interesting. Very interesting in a broad sense that is a huge humanist struggle holding dear values and ideas and characters that can't be seen.

In many ways the book is as much about writing as all the other things.

Are you familiar with Harold Bloom's The Anxiety of Influence? I feel like there are useful things in that for discussing Little, Big but I won't go into it if it isn't familiar.

It is interesting that the connect to them lies in the women. The men have to struggle with their faith as it were much more.

How do you feel about the role of women in the novel?

But to be fair, it certainly isn't spelled out who grandfather trout is or what Sylvie's been doing while she's gone or how Ariel learned her arts or what exactly happened to Russell Eigenblick. I know people who would be frustrated by that, I wouldn't recommend it to them.

Well, there are still clues to some the answers above. My interpretations for these are: Grandfather Trout is August (actually, this is spelled out), Sylvie was taken to faerie, sort of like Lilac; Ariel was part of the family but because she was far from Edgewood, she had to figure it out for herself a la the "Art of Memory"; and Russell Eigenblick went to the next level in with the rest and became Brother North Wind (which I only found out here, which is a great place to go if you have questions about the book).

To me it doesn't matter if every little detail isn't nailed down, yet, all the important ones ARE, if you are paying attention. That's another thing that is very like real life.

I kind of ignore Harold Bloom because I don't particularly care what he thinks I should be reading or why.

Crowley's Livejournal page is very helpful with other info & interviews if you want to have some mysteries revealed.

I love the way the women are portrayed. There are strong women of all types: career women (Ariel), stay-at-home-mom types (Alice & Momdy), spacey or artsy types (Sophie, Sylvie, Cloud). The women are often in charge, sometimes without even knowing it. The men do struggle more with faerie, and it does seem that way IRL too, whether you're talking about "faerie" or religion in general or just intuiting others' feelings. That is where women tend to have a natural affinity.

Also, there is realistic sex and sexual relationships. You rarely find that in any novel, let alone fantasy.

LG- I actually had figured out all those things for myself -except for Eigenblick but thanks for the analysis. I didn't say there weren't cliues I said they weren't spelled out. Like I said before these things don't bother me but I believe they would bother some other readers. I think you are reading my criticisms (if you can call them that- mild as they are. You'll see I actually gave it 5 stars but I am aware that there are some who would not find it to their taste) as harsher than they are. Perhaps that is the bane of written discussions. It is clear you have a deep connection to the material.

I guess it is my critical reading skills that (for better or worse and sometimes I think it is worse) won't let me be dishonest about confusion in a text no matter how much I like it. I find it more interesting to discuss something that is perplexing or disconcerting.

I certainly found all the overtones of war and a desperate city situation to be disturbing in the current political climate (but then in what political climate is it that war is not omnipresent).

As for Harold Bloom sure his is pompous and full of himself and I'd never let him tell me what to read but the fact that he is so profuse in his praise of Little,Big when he despised HP I find interesting- it is certainly more literary but I think it is more than that. I still find some of his critical theory interesting. I think he is obessessed with questions of mortality and immortality and those are questions I really enjoy in the book. Also the idea of destiny which has come up in some HP books. Whether people are part of a story and whether or not they have control or volition.

I am not about having mysteries revealed I like struggle.

I agree with what you said about women in the book and women and spiritual affinity generally. It is masterful of Crowley to write such well realized women.

I think what is also skillful is his use of imagery that is familiar. The little old woman in the woods, the magic fish that speaks, the changeling child, etc. It creates a familiarity with the world even while it is otherworldly. That maybe what I like best about it. It feels like treading in someplace I went in childhood or in dreams.

Yes, it is very dreamlike, very impressionistic. Evocative. You either like that kind of thing or you don't.

If Bloom is reading a lot into it about immortality, that's fine, I don't really think that was Crowley's intent. Neither is Crowley particularly interested in faerie or in occult practices. According to his interview, this stuff just made good fiction.

That makes it even more special, in a way. Crowley writes extremely well about women, about faerie, and about life after death without actually being female or believing in any of it. What an imagination!

The way that destiny is used in Little, Big is much more effective than in HP, mostly because no one in the story actually knows what their destiny is, or even for sure that they have one. Again, like RL.

And also, it's not just one special kid; everyone in the family has a destiny. There are at least 52 heroes in Little, Big.

Yes for a little while I thought why has no one made this into a film it would be great for an ensemble cast and then I got further into it and thought no this really can't be a film.

It is funny what you say about Bloom because his major contribution to literary criticism is his theory that each generation misreads the classics of a previous generation to make room for themselves because they are anxious that all the good things happened to previous generations. I think he is a great misreader.

What did you think of the book structure and the quotes? I adored his quotes and felt I might be able to chart his book chapter structure into some glorious cosmological thing.

I'm off to buy a copy right now! I've not read any of these posts yet.... Just looking forward to joining in soon!

I am waiting for other people to finish and join this thread but I thought I'd tell you LG that at least 2 of my friends are now reading Little,Big so you've had quite the ripple effect.

Wow, I'm a little scared. If they don't like it they'll think I'm a dweeb.

Oh well, I guess I am a dweeb. I mean I'm 47 and I blog about Harry Potter!

Wow! I finally finished it. I really liked the writing and voice of the author. The characters were great, and thank goodness my book had a family tree in the front so I could keep everyone straight.

I am glad I read it, but I have to say I didn't get it. What was the Tale? Was there really a war? What made the loud noises? They all came together back at the house for the banquet? I got really lost along the way! Someone send me a guide that won't turn into a tree :) Please don't send me one of those fake Lilacs. Creepy!

LG: You are not a dweeb. We all have different tastes in books.

Yay someone else finished. Oh and LG you are certainly not a dweeb or else we all are.

compski, I understand how you feel. It is a book you experience more than understand sometimes. These are my guesses and LG who has read it a lot may have a better understanding. The book is the Tale but the tale has also been going on before the book and the faery world (although no one has said that is what it is - is slowly dying off and with it the human world seems to be declining) the banquet brings the whole family into that world where they take their places as the new generation- leaving the human world behind. I think the names Titania and Auberon are the biggest clues to me there.

But again that is my surmise. He doesn't spell things out. Everything is oblique. It reminds me a bit of magical realism where not everything make sense but it seems right and you occupy thet world more like a painting than a book.

Other thoughts?

SPOILERIFFIC--It's not a war, it's a transition. It's about levels--worlds within worlds. After the banquet, the human characters enter the "next level in" and take over the functions of the inhabitants of the faerie world that they have been communing with. The faeries move another "level in" etc. Remember the farther in you go, the bigger it gets.

For instance, Daily Alice becomes Mrs. Underhill. Apparently, Russell Eigenblick becomes Brother North Wind, but I only figured this out by reading Crowley's website. Smoky does not make it to the other side, which is the bitter part of the sweet ending.

Edgewood is a door into faerie, as is Ariel's orrery. I guess John Drinkwater had the special ability to build bridges to faerie.

That's the way I see it, anyway. It's very impressionistic by design, so one person's interpretation is as valid as the next.

*mischievously twirls the Resurrection Stone*

I just finished Little, Big, and I promised LG that I would share my thoughts when I was done. I thought about just doing a profile comment, but then I remembered this thread.

First of all, I'm still processing the experience of reading this book, so I may have more thoughts later. I took it very slowly, reading a lot of other stuff in between.

As others have said, the writing is intricate and lovely. There were passages (though I can't think of specific examples at the moment, naturally) that simply blew me away. The characters were fascinating and complex . . . but I must admit that I found it hard to care strongly about any of them. I think this hearkens back to the surreal, impressionistic nature of the book, and probably says more about my shortcomings as a reader, than it does about any deficiencies in the writing. (I will say that George Mouse is one of the most distasteful characters I've ever run across in literature!)

Part of the reason that I'm not madly in love with this book is that I've never been a fan of that writing style. It reminded me of Charles De Lint and Patricia McKillip, authors that I have to be in just the right mood to read because of their writing styles.

I did love Edgewood. I started reading this book on a weekend I spent at my grandparents' farm in Pennsylvania. While their house bears little or no resemblance to Edgewood, the woods around it are populated with the faeries and goblins of my childhood. It was the perfect setting for reading Little, Big.

Beyond that, you all have already touched on a lot of the things I would have mentioned:

#6 -- "I think what is also skillful is his use of imagery that is familiar. The little old woman in the woods, the magic fish that speaks, the changeling child, etc. It creates a familiarity with the world even while it is otherworldly. That maybe what I like best about it. It feels like treading in someplace I went in childhood or in dreams."

I certainly agree with that! There were bits and pieces of faerie tale, folk wisdom, and the odd old sayings that I remember hearing from my mother and grandmother -- also bits that reminded me of other books (most particularly Lewis Carroll's works, but others as well, Peter Pan and even, a little bit, The Chronicles of Narnia). Some of those connections were intended, I'm sure (Lewis Carroll is quoted in at least one of the chapter headings) while other connections may only have been in my own head.

#12 -- "I am glad I read it, but I have to say I didn't get it. What was the Tale? Was there really a war? What made the loud noises? They all came together back at the house for the banquet? I got really lost along the way! Someone send me a guide that won't turn into a tree :) Please don't send me one of those fake Lilacs. Creepy!"

I felt this way a good bit of the time. While I feel like a lot of the story came together by the end, I spent a good portion of the middle being entirely mystified about what was going on.

#13 -- "It is a book you experience more than understand sometimes."

Very true.

#14 -- "It's about levels--worlds within worlds. After the banquet, the human characters enter the "next level in" and take over the functions of the inhabitants of the faerie world that they have been communing with. The faeries move another "level in" etc. Remember the farther in you go, the bigger it gets. "

LG, I know you don't like Narnia, but this particular aspect of the book is where I was most strongly reminded of Narnia. That concept of the afterlife, or faith, or something beyond what you can see, getting bigger the farther in you go, is a concept that goes beyond one ideology or religion.

Hooray for Foggi and the ressurection stone. Now I am curious about this Charles de Lint because you have mentioned him before. Is the writing style similar or is it just that it is a book you have to be in a certain state to enjoy reading?

De Lint writes urban fantasy. His writing style is not quite as surreal as Crowley's, but there are similarities. I think Kerian is a fan of his -- she might have more to say about his work than I do.

Wow, I see nothing similar about de Lint, style-wise...can you be more specific? I can't read de Lint at all, I find his style really clunky and inserts himself into things in a really amatuerish way. (Yes, I like the Pogues, but you shouldn't expect a reader to base their understanding of a character on whether they like the Pogues.)

I never said I didn't like Narnia, I said that as an adult it doesn't hold up for me. I think Lewis is using allegory to speak of Christian themes, one of which is the afterlife. Little, Big is anything but Christian (!) so I would never have made that connection, foggi. Interesting....

Hmm I have to say. I have looked at De Lint titles before and they have never grabbed me.

I figured it was the allegory you wouldn't like LG. Tolkein didn't like it either they argued about it. He also didn't like the way Lewis borrowed from multiple mythologies.

I can see foggi's point though. There is something about people slipping back and forth between what is "real" and what is "mystical" apart from specific ideology that is similar.

Edited to fix touchstone.

LG I mentioned it on another thread and leery as I am of making any recommendations for you I *think* you would like Banana Yoshimoto's Kitchen. It is only 100 some odd pages so I think you could pick it up in a book store and figure out quickly if you liked it or not.

Why are you leery? Am I scary in some way? I really respect your opinions, even if we don't always agree. Anything you would recommend, I would pay close attention to.

As I mentioned in the other thread, I've read & liked Yoshimoto.

I totally see foggi's point, I just would probably never had seen it myself, having written off Narnia as "kid stuff." (Not BAD, just no longer for me.)

I just saw the other thread. I was typing that one when you must have answered

I think I am leery of wasting your time because there will never be enough time to read all the books one wants. Plus, you seem to have had a lot of disappointments in recommendations that have come from HE. I am sympathetic, I hate it if I feel obligated to finish a book because someone loved it. Someone gave me a Janet Evanovich book and I couldn't even start it.

I actually think I tend to be a pretty harsh critic which is why I am always searching out obscure titles or going back to neglected classics. I also think you and I don't actually disagree that much. I think there may be one or two books a year that I really love if I am lucky.

Yes, I think we are alike in that way. But "you have to kiss a lot of frogs to find the handsome prince" so I'm always willing to consider recommendations. Again allow me to state that I highly value your opinion, actually, every HE person's opinion, even when I disagree.

I think the only HE recommendation I really hated was the book but I guess that particular brand of hate carries a lot of weight around here. (mwa, love all you twilight readers!)

#18 -- Hmmm . . . it's been a couple of years since I read any De Lint (for grown-ups -- I find his children's/YA books very different), so perhaps I am misremembering something about his style. All I can say is that, to me, his books and Little, Big evoke a similar "feel." Perhaps it's just the element of urban fantasy in Little, Big that brings De Lint to mind for me. Beyond that, I'm afraid I can't be much more specific. There's no doubt in my mind, however, that Crowley is the much more polished writer.

Best. Fantasy. Ever. And my favorite book, if I had to name just one. I reread it nearly every year.

What I like best about Little, Big (and about other favorite fantasies of mine, such as The Last Unicorn) is, as someone was saying earlier, not everything is explained but everything makes a kind of intuitive sense. The modern trend in fantasy is to over-explain everything, and that can squash the juice out of the story.

I agree that Little, Big and some early Charles DeLint stories have a similar feel -- you can almost enter a dreamlike state while reading them. That said, DeLint's quality has fallen off noticeably in the last 10 years. His world has gotten too familiar and safe.

I find it difficult to recommend Little, Big to other people because I'm usually disappointed by their reactions. Three out of four people I've given it to got so intimidated by it that they never started reading it, or started reading it and put it down after a chapter and told me they hated it. The fourth person thought it was a work of genius.

I've been reading this book very slowly and loving it, glad to be in good company! Weirdly, I heard about that's book a few months before I bought a copy, and I kept dreaming about it even before I knew much about it. And it's living up to my dream-hype...