Alfke.PASA@Xerox.ARPA (09/14/85)
From: Peter Alfke <Alfke.pasa@Xerox.ARPA> From Steven Brust: >I read John Crowley's LITTLE, BIG, worked hard at it because it >wasn't an easy book to read, and was blown away by it. I have >recommended it to many people. I am very glad I read it. It was >beautifully crafted, and said things that I think are important to >say, and looked into things that deserved looking into. It was not >a great book, however; it was too dificult to read to be a great >book. I am confused. Did you really find "Little, Big" hard to read? Crowley isn't playing with the prose stylistically, a la Joyce or Delany; he just uses the language very expressively. While his writing may be harder to read than your standard modern prose (Niven, Heinlein, Hemingway et al), I can't see it really falling into the "definitely tough slogging" category. Compare with any of James Branch Cabell's writing: now THAT'S "difficult to read" (though rewarding and surprisingly witty if you expend the effort). I don't believe that Crowley's writing is tangled and opaque enough so as to detract from his works' greatness, particularly considering all the praise you heaped upon his book. PS: A tip to you and anyone else who enjoyed "Little, Big": go read "Winters' Tale" by Mark Helprin. It's similar in style and tone to "Little, Big", although the territory it inhabits is closer to the "mainstream" (whatever that may mean). Also highly recommended is of course Crowley's "Engine Summer", which I have raved about pretty recently in this forum. --Peter Alfke