Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 08:54:32 -0600 (GMT)
From: Adam Stephanides 
Subject: Re: Re: (urth) Crowley, then ...


-------Original Message-------
From: Josh Geller 
Sent: 07/27/03 07:33 PM
To: urth@urth.net
Subject: Re: (urth) Crowley, then ...

> 
> On Sun, 2003-07-27 at 17:56, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:

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

>Hmm.

>I find 'Little, Big' to be deeply moving. I don't guess I can answer.

I would go along with this.  I too find Little, Big deeply moving; but if you don't, I don't think that there's any "key" which will make you like it better.

>But there's no accounting for tastes. Maybe you are just not meant to
>get it. I sure hope not.

Tastes do differ.  There are a number of highly regarded writers (LeGuin and Delany, to name only two, in the SF field) whom I don't "get" and probably never will.

--Adam

--