Karen
When I first read this book, I ended up having an argument about it with a friend who had also read it. I felt like the book was coy, alluding strongly to fairies, but not coming out and admitting that there really were FAIRIES acting in the story–not allowing the reader a clear view of some of the essential action. The ambiguity I perceived irritated me, because I felt that it made the book unnecessarily murky. My friend, on the other hand, said she appreciated the ambiguities and that they were an essential part of the story for her.
I recently re-read Little, Big and my reaction to it is different this time. The story is much less murky and ambiguous than I remember. I see what I took as ambiguity–indeed, the reader does not get a clear view of some of the essential action, so there is a lot left open to interpretation in certain places. But in other places, the story is clear and strange and wonderful. And it IS made clear that fairies are acting in the world and influencing the lives of the Drinkwater family, which the book follows.
I enjoyed the experience of reading this in the summertime on park benches the first time around. The story is BIG, and deserves to be savored.
I came to read this book because someone mentioned it to me as an example of the “alternate history” genre, and I was curious about that. I was drawn in by the world of fairies and by the intricacies of the story, such as footnotes referring to fictional historical works and folklore. When I finished it, I had to go back and read it again right away. The story incorporates a lot of folklore about fairies, and involves two magicians disputing about the proper use of magic, set in the time of the Napoleonic wars. I found myself thinking about whether the book was a social commentary, and if it was, what kind of commentary it was making. I had one half-baked idea about the book offering a commentary on what it means to be English, based on a major event at the end of the book. I'd love to talk about this book with someone.