Little, Big

If Erin Morgenstern takes up writing for evil, this is something that would result.

I want to give this book five stars because it's so meticulous, recursively written. Infuriatingly. Meticulously. Recursively... Bah! It's an impressive construction, but I found it pretty boring. And because I was bored, I didn't pay close enough attention to it. And then I was frustrated by constant reminders that I couldn't remember each of the times a particular character, metaphor, motif, symbol had appeared before.

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.