Pullman says one particular thing in this article which is very astute:
Quote:
|
In adult literary fiction, stories are there on sufferance. Other things are felt to be more important: technique, style, literary knowingness. . . . The present-day would-be George Eliots take up their stories as if with a pair of tongs. They’re embarrassed by them. If they could write novels without stories in them, they would. Sometimes they do.
|
In this respect he has a lot more in common with Tolkien and Lewis (and Rowling) than he thinks, the power to capture the imagination by simple story. I read a lot of contemporary fiction and I have to say that much of the time I am very disappointed with weak, useless stories, which leave me feeling more than a little angry that I have been 'conned' into buying x novel. If I want poetry, I read poetry, if I want philosophy I read philosophy, if I read a novel I want a damn story; if it has got poetry and philosophy in it, then that's even better, but the story is paramount.
He misses one point which his Dark Materials
shares with LotR, the theme of growth. This cannot be called infantile. Frodo in particular grows up through his travels and his troubles; he leaves behind his bucolic existence and enters the perils of the wider world, returning home utterly changed. So do the other Hobbits, but unlike them, Frodo cannot cope with the changes which have come over him and he has to leave again. This is a fundamentally grown-up and modern theme; we can say that Frodo has become alienated through what has happened and the picture Tolkien painted of him was of a person unable to reconcile a changed self with a changed world.
However, I don't want to make a list of "see, you're wrong" points.
Pullman's radicalism is a very pipe and slippers kind of radicalism, one which does not wish to have the cushions disturbed or the cleaner suddenly decide not to turn up one morning. He wishes the Kingdom of Heaven to become a Republic, which is something I quite like the idea of myself, having a quite unorthodox view of God and a natural lack of trust for dogma, but I do have to ask if the Republic of Heaven would just become another kind of restrictive system. I get the impression that for him, Blake's philosophies are fine in a book, but might not be acceptable in life.
One thing I do not like in Pullman's world is that the Daemons, when they settle into adult form, take on our attributes. Lord Asriel has a Snow Leopard, and Mrs Coulter an exotic monkey, but why do all the servants have little dogs and humble birds? I am uncomfortable with this.
Still, I like His Dark Materials as it not only raises some fascinating questions and ideas but its a damn good story, one of the best I have ever read. For that, I am much more prepared to answer Pullman's criticisms in a considered way, yet when it is an author who has put out a dreadful novel or other book, particularly of the kind Pullman has described, I am
far less tolerant.
