(urth) If I already like ...

[Dan'l Danehy-Oakes]

The style is certainly part of it; there were places in _Little, Big_
where I felt that Crowley was ... well, not exactly talking down to
the reader, but I can't think of a better way to put it. Like Wolfe,
he conceals things, but unlike Wolfe, he seems to be almost smirking
over what he knows that you don't.

The observational thing, on the other hand, is all good.

But the real problem for me is simply that I don't feel, after _n_
pages, that I've been given anything for my investment of time. There
is, for me, no _there_ there.

On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 9:40 AM, Craig Brewer <cnbrewer at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Do you think it's the style? Crowley writes in that anti-Wolfe,
> "art-literary" not-much-happening-for-awhile style that circles around
> itself. When Wolfe looks like he's navel-gazing, there's really a lot going
> on. When Crowley's navel-gazing, he's going deep and putting everything else
> on pause. That gets to one of those questions of taste. But I think it's
> something that has frustrated people I know.
>
> Crowley's one of those observational, "hey did you ever notice"
> writers...whereas Wolfe doesn't re-notice the familiar -- he takes you
> places you've never been.
>
> ________________________________
> From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>
> To: Craig Brewer <cnbrewer at yahoo.com>; The Urth Mailing List
> <urth at lists.urth.net>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2012 11:35 AM
>
> Subject: Re: (urth) If I already like ...
>
> On the other hand...
>
> There's something about Crowley that works for some people and not
> others. I'm one of the others. I read all of _Little, Big_ and
> ultimately asked myself, "So what?" I could not penetrate beyond page
> 50 or so of _AEgypt_.
>
> I'm not sure why, but Crowley just goes right over, under, or beside me.
>
> --
> Dan'l Danehy-Oakes
>
>



-- 
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes