What does the sixpence = ?

[Estelyn Telcontar]

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:

‘Thou shalt not’ might reach the head, but it takes ‘Once upon a time’ to reach the heart.

The same thing goes for the idea that children's stories are worthwhile to write and to read:

There are some themes, some subjects, too large for adult fiction; they can only be dealt with adequately in a children’s book.

That's a quote worth putting into a signature!

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.

[davem]

Originally Posted by SpM

Ultimately, we should be open to criticism of Tolkien, since Tolkien himself should not be above criticism. By placing him there, we risk committing a kind of extreme "political correctness" ourselves - brooking no dissent and stifling discussion. But by considering such criticism objectively, and also by responding constructively to it, we may just learn a little bit more about the man and his works ourselves.

I am open to criticism of Tolkien - but I'm going to respond to the critic in kind. If he/she is respectful of Tolkien, informed & rational in what they say I'll be respectful, informed & rational in response. If, on the other hand, like Hari, Greer, Jacobson, Edmund Wilson, Pullman et al, they are insulting, disrespectful, ignorant & only out to grab headlines off the back of a great Artist, I don't see why I should treat them, or what they say, with any respect.

I really can't see that I have anything to learn about Tolkien from critics like that. Pullman is typical - he has no desire to debate Tolkien's work, merely to insult him in order to appear 'clever'. HDM is an entertaining kids' book but has no real philosophical depth - 'We must build the Republic of Heaven' is about as meaningful as 'We must help those colorless green ideas sleep furiously'. I didn't find anything he said interesting - it was pretty much a collection of truisms & cliches:

—“We need to ensure that children are not forced to waste their time on barren rubbish”

“every single religion that has a monotheistic god ends up by persecuting other people and killing them because they don’t accept him.”

“we can learn what’s good and what’s bad, what’s generous and unselfish, what’s cruel and mean, from fiction”

And as for:

I think we should read books, and tell children stories, and take them to the theatre, and learn poems, and play music, as if it would make a difference. . . . We should act as if the universe were listening to us and responding. We should act as if life were going to win. . . .

That's pretty much what Tolkien said - only he said it better.

[Child of the 7th Age]

On Pullman's public "dishing" of Tolkien, see this news article. This was published in 2000 before PJ's movies came out:

Pullman's insistence on truth to human nature lies behind his dismissal of the fantasy writers to whom he is often compared: JRR Tolkien and CS Lewis. "I dislike them for different reasons. The Lord of the Rings, for all its scope, weight and structural integrity, is not a serious book because it doesn't say anything interesting or new or truthful about human beings. It tells an essentially trivial story. The goodies are always good and the baddies are always bad....."

.....The conclusion Pullman has come to is that people have within them the capacity to react and respond in a number of ways. His characters change; they make choices. His children, especially, are neither all good nor all bad. Lyra has spent a lifetime lying but it doesn't stop her having integrity when she needs it; Will has killed a man. "I'm not dewy-eyed about children like Kenneth Grahame or AA Milne. I spent too long as a teacher," he says. "I'm clear-eyed about them...."

The italics are my own. Honestly, I see this as the same simplistic garbage that some critics have been spitting out since the late sixties. I agree with Davem. This is not thoughtful criticism. It is a knee jerk reaction based on personal prejudice.

There are things about Pullman's books that I find interesting and delightful, although there are also times when I have to suspend my own values and simply accept the author's viewpoint as a given. If I am able to do this with Pullman, why can't Pullman make some attempt to do it with Tolkien?

The author Pullman really hated was not Tolkien but Lewis. Ironically, I see clear similarities between Lewis and Pullman. Both used their writings as a "bully-pulpit" for their own beliefs in a way that Tolkien did not.