'Spun Candy' anyone?

[Macalaure]

This is purely speculative, so feel free to disagree with me or to ignore my post altogether.


I would say that the 'mother' is their own writing. Of course this means in a way it's not their mother but their children, so the analogy doesn't exactly work with this approach.
Following Bethberry, their 'fathers' had a major influence on their own work. Now they might fear that others notice this influence and point it out, maybe even to the extend to say they copied parts. To themselves, this may seem as if their work is degraded in others' eyes and this they cannot and do not suffer. To overcome it by pointing out and explaining why they and their work weren't influenced like this is not enough, as it may be objected with good arguments. That is why they have to attack their fathers themselves with opinions and tell everybody just how much they dislike them. Now, in their eyes, they have their creation back for their own and unspoiled.

Though, I don't think I can go this far with Tolkien and Shakespeare, as Tolkien never publicly voiced his dislikes.


About the question "Why does Pullman criticise Tolkien the way he does" one more thing came to my mind. Especially the "real wrestle with real things" has me thinking and reminded me of the "Is Fantasy a dream or an escape?"-thread. Pullman would certainly have answered: none of the two, fantasy has only so much value as it is directly connected with reality. So my question is: Is Pullman a jailer?

[davem]

In this context I'm reminded of Tolkien's words in the Essay he wrote on Smith:

BUT Faery is not religious. It is fairly evident that it is not Heaven or Paradise. Certainly its inhabitants, Elves, are not angels or emlssares of God (direct). The tale does not deal with religion itself. The Elves are not busy with a plan to reawake religious devotion in Wootton. The Cooking allegory would not be suitable to any such import. Faery represents at its weakest a breaking out (at least in mind) from the iron ring of the familiar, stilI more from the adamantine ring of belief that it is known, possessed, controlled, and so (ultimately) all that is worth being considered - a constant awareness of a world beyond these rings. More strongly it represents love: that is, a love and respect for all things, 'inanimate' and 'animate', an unposessing love of them as 'other'. This 'love' will produce both ruth and delight. Things seen in its light will be respected, and they will also appear delightful, beautiful, wonderful - even glorious.

Pullman, it seems, is aware of a world beyond these rings, but considers it to be dangerous & wishes to instill a fear of it in his readers & so attacks any work which presents it in a positive light.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

I'm enjoying the various ideas and contributions which this topic produces! It's been awhile since I read HDM, and I don't own it, so I can't go back to check up my memories. As I recall, I enjoyed it, especially the first two books, very much, (though I did not agree with the author's basic premise concerning faith) but found its ending less satisfying. It was a let-down for me; Pullman's view of the end of human life was without hope, since it led to nothing, more or less.

Lewis' Narnia series ends clearly allegorically, and I don't enjoy rereading it as much as I did years ago, but there is a fascination in "further up and further in"! "The inside is larger than the outside" is a hopeful view of future beauty.

Tolkien manages to give each character in his story a different ending - no stereotyped sugary closing for anyone! Aragorn's was a fairy-tale ending - he got the kingdom and the bride, to keep at least until we read Appendix A. Frodo got the "escape from this world" ending, with the hope of healing. Sam got the "back home" ending, coming full circle to stay where he began, though changed. We could go on with each character, with each one finding what is appropriate for him/her. How could "spun candy" have so much differentiation?! There is depth there - and hope.

There is also so much wisdom in LotR, whether the common sense of Sam's Gaffer or Gandalf's speeches (think of his answer to "I wish it hadn't happened in my time" or the closing words "I will not say, do not weep", to mention only two). Those are not sermons, trying to convert anyone, but they give us readers something to ponder and to take with us that enriches our lives.

Of all three books/series, which would I take to the proverbial desert island? My presence here answers that question, I'm sure.