![]() |
![]() |
Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
![]() |
#26 | ||
Princess of Skwerlz
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: where the Sea is eastwards (WtR: 6060 miles)
Posts: 7,500
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
That New Yorker article on Pullman is long! It took me awhile to get through it, and I found myself agreeing and disagreeing with his various views on fantasy literature. I have read His Dark Materials and greatly enjoyed the books, while disagreeing with his basic concept of belief. (Granted, organised religion has aspects that I would gladly discard, but I had to willingly suspend belief in order to read Pullman's books.)
I think the matter of religion is significant in critics' appraisal of literature. In today's largely secularised world, an atheist is more likely to be taken seriously than one who brings his own religious convictions into his works, whether overtly or indirectly. The difference of opinion between Pullman and Tolkien rests heavily upon this aspect, as I see it. However, it seems to me that Pullman would agree with much of what Tolkien wrote in "On Fairy-Stories". Consider his quote: Quote:
Quote:
I'm not sure why he claims that Tolkien's book has no depth. Is there a fundamental difference aside from religion that keeps him from recognizing what we see? He too subcreates a world in a very convincing manner, but Fantasy must mean something different to him. I'm just not sure what.
__________________
'Mercy!' cried Gandalf. 'If the giving of information is to be the cure of your inquisitiveness, I shall spend all the rest of my days in answering you. What more do you want to know?' 'The whole history of Middle-earth...' |
||
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |