'Spun Candy' anyone?

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

Or you could send him his own statements back but replacing 'Tolkien' & 'LotR' with 'Pullman' & 'HDM' & see if he consider's them insulting....

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

I would be mighty curious to witness PP's reaction to one of his own lectures with HDM in it instead of LoTR (provided that the lecture is relatively old so he would not recognize it )

See, that's just the point. I think any kind of substitution would of necessity change the context of the comments. In being a substitution, it would become a different rhetorical subject--different kettle of fish. It would truly then be deceitful and mean spirited. More honest would be to address PP with new words, openly.

Honestly, I am really glad none of you guys are fundamentalists who object to cartoons or this forum would really go up in flames.

[Lalwendë]

I'm reading HDM again, and once again I'm finding it to be a fantastic read - it's definitely in my top ten books, if not top five. And in some ways it brings me back to the sense of excitement I once got from reading Tolkien for the first time; much of HDM is very upsetting and the story is intense.

Anyway, this brought me back to some more thoughts.

The similarities between Tolkien and Pullman are startling, not just in terms of their biographies - both losing a father at an early age, and both were brought up with a strong religious influence, in Pullman's case CofE. But other things are similar - both have an intense love of simple story and narrative, and its story that motivated Pullman to write HDM and story that tempted Tolkien out of naval-gazing personal language development and into writing proper books.

Both men seem to have an anarchic streak too. There's an obvious shared love for humour, and the sense of the silly and naughty. They also seem to want to kick against 'the man' in some way - Pullman with his comments on 'worthy' state education and Tolkien's curmudgeonly grumblings about The State. Pullman's interviews are filled with controversial statements which he later contradicts by saying something which seems to be exactly the opposite. And didn't Tolkien do just that?! His grandiose and much mis-quoted statements about 'mythologies for England' and that comment about his work being 'Catholic' which he then went on to contradict with his statements on allegory. Of course, Tolkien wasn't averse to knocking other writers himself; his more polite times probably stopped him from being so nasty. Both writers are/were stirrers of the proverbial. Perhaps Pullman has his eye on flaming debates when he's long gone and is laughing away at us from the outer reaches of the Universe.

So where's the essential difference between them? I think it lies in that Pullman admires Reason and Tolkien admires Romance. Pullman states he was deeply influenced by Blake and Milton - and interestingly that he was amused that Milton ended up making Satan look quite cool, actually (my words, not his - it was something I said at Uni that made the tutor laugh, but is similar to what Pullman thinks!). The church he depicts with hate in HDM is the church had the Reformation failed - dogmatic and untempered by Reason. I'm noting that he never once mentions Jesus and is not actually a classical Atheist, more a curious lapsed Liberal Protestant (like me). Tolkien however, certainly viewed from the perspective of Pullman, harks back to the pre-Reformation. However, viewed in isolation, I always find Tolkien to be a Modernist, not a Medievalist - bleak and moribund and forever focussing on the need for people to make an effort to make the world a decent place (and stop relying on Elves).

Infantile? Spun candy? Reading Pullman again, and looking at what he pours into HDM I have two thoughts.

Firstly, he's being unfair when he criticises Tolkien for having Elves and Hobbits and 'unreal' creatures. Erm, has he not got talking bears? Witches? (the witches have a fascinating feminist aspect but I'm not going into that) Cliff Ghasts? Mad creatures are a feature of fantasy. I think this is another example of that familiar big mouth that Pullman and Tolkien shared.

Secondly, I simply think that Pullman is missing the big ideas contained in Tolkien's work about the environment, war and mortality. Strangely, for a writer who poured so much detail into his work, Tolkien deals with his issues in a poetic way, without going into the detail. He uses a big brush. Pullman on the other hand does not shy away from things which are actually quite brave things to put into a kids' book - complicated astrophysics, complicated adult relationships, complicated political machinations. He uses detail.

Anyway, I'll no doubt think of more when I've finished reading. However, the fact remains that both writers aren't/weren't averse to a bit of stirring, and Pullman's comments on Tolkien probably ought to be taken in that light.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

The church he depicts with hate in HDM is the church had the Reformation failed - dogmatic and untempered by Reason. I'm noting that he never once mentions Jesus and is not actually a classical Atheist, more a curious lapsed Liberal Protestant (like me). Tolkien however, certainly viewed from the perspective of Pullman, harks back to the pre-Reformation.

I'm not sure the Church Pullman depicts in HDM bears any relation to the real Church at all. He has effectively created a twisted caricature of the Church which retains only the negative aspects & pretends the positive aspects never existed. Where are the Saints, the Mystics, the poets & artists? He fetes Milton & Blake while at the same time apparently 'ignoring' the positive aspects of Christianity which was central to their thinking. The Church (& it is the Christian Chrurch - well specifically the Catholic church - which he is attacking) is presented as cruel, ignorant & effectively 'Satanic' - which is odd in a way - by rejecting the existence of objective Evil in the form of the devil he has to turn 'God' into the devil. Effectively the death of 'God' in HDM is equivalent to the fall of Sauron in LotR (& one could compare the seperation of Will & Lyra with the seperation of Sam & Frodo in LotR).

Strangely, for a writer who poured so much detail into his work, Tolkien deals with his issues in a poetic way, without going into the detail. He uses a big brush. Pullman on the other hand does not shy away from things which are actually quite brave things to put into a kids' book - complicated astrophysics, complicated adult relationships, complicated political machinations. He uses detail.

I find this to be the opposite of my take on Tolkien & Pullman. I find Tolkien's focus on detail - from the physical detail of plant & landscape to the complex interrelationships of races & Politics - one of the most interesting things about his work, & rather than finding Pullman's approach complicated I find it overblown.

[The Mouth of Sauron]

Please remember that LOTR is a novel .

I am the Mouth of Sauron .

[davem]

Originally Posted by The Mouth of Sauron

Please remember that LOTR is a novel .

I am the Mouth of Sauron .

Technically its an epic romance....

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by davem

I'm not sure the Church Pullman depicts in HDM bears any relation to the real Church at all. He has effectively created a twisted caricature of the Church which retains only the negative aspects & pretends the positive aspects never existed. Where are the Saints, the Mystics, the poets & artists? He fetes Milton & Blake while at the same time apparently 'ignoring' the positive aspects of Christianity which was central to their thinking. The Church (& it is the Christian Chrurch - well specifically the Catholic church - which he is attacking) is presented as cruel, ignorant & effectively 'Satanic' - which is odd in a way - by rejecting the existence of objective Evil in the form of the devil he has to turn 'God' into the devil. Effectively the death of 'God' in HDM is equivalent to the fall of Sauron in LotR (& one could compare the seperation of Will & Lyra with the seperation of Sam & Frodo in LotR).

Actually, the Church depicted by Pullman is not really Catholic, its some extreme form of Calvinism where Calvin simply deposes the Papacy and replaces it with something more extreme. The Catholic Church was not the only Church with an extreme dogma in those times. Calvin had his own Inquisition and a Consistory (Consistorial Court in HDM) and set up a rigid hierarchy similar to that seen in HDM.

As I've said, HDM depicts a world where its as though the Reformation never happened, well, that's probably not entirely right, as not all traditions descending from the Reformation were necessarily Liberal and infused with Reason. And indeed, Pullman does include a lot of aspects of extremes of religions such as mentioning harm done to children in the name of religion (like the recent controversy of African families sedning children have 'demons' cast out by being beaten to death), and he also criticises the idea of 'confession' being a way of buying your way out of sin in the world of Lyra, which is indeed a criticism of Catholicism.

EDIT: and I have to add, that when I say Reformation, I have always got in mind specifically Anglicanism and the English Reformation, as its the one I know about. Possibly this is the Reformation Pullman also mentally refers to as his Grandfather was an Anglican Minister, and some notable Anglicans, including The Archbishop of Canterbury, have lauded HDM with high praise as it actually focusses on the misuse of dogma, not on Christianity being bad in itself. As I've said, Jesus isn't in HDM, there is no war against him.

[Lalwendë]

Rather than begin a new thread, this seems to fit here best.

There's been a new interview with Pullman where he mentions Tolkien. Note, he does not knock Tolkien, but his imitators!

Read these:
Guardian Article
Literary Review Article

And the Killer Quote:

How much were you itching to invent alternative worlds before embarking on 'Northern Lights'?

I wasn't itching at all. It took me entirely by surprise. I always took a dim view of fantasy - still do in fact. Most of it is trash, but then most of everything is trash. It seemed to me writers of fantasy in the Tolkien tradition had this wonderful tool that could do anything and they did very little with it. They were rather like the inventors of the subtle knife who used it to steal candy when they could have done much more.

The first book I think really did what fantasy can do, besides Paradise Lost, was a book published in 1920 called The Voyage to Arcturus by David Lindsay. It's a very poorly written, clumsily constructed book which nevertheless has the force, the power, the intensity of genius. He uses fantasy to say something profound about morality - none of Tolkien's imitators do this.

Another thing about fantasy - I'm sure that far more adults have read His Dark Materials because they were published as children's books than would have done if they had been published as fantasy. Nor was I itching to write about religion. I originally wanted to write a story about a girl who goes into a room where she shouldn't be and has to hide when someone comes in and by chance overhears something she's not supposed to hear. A little later I discovered she had a daemon, that was the point at which I realised I'd got hold of a story somehow that I could use - no, you don't use a story - that I could explore, and say something about Kleist's essay which I had come across fifteen years before. The religious theme evolved as part of what Lyra has to struggle against and give up.

I have to say I agree with him. I don't like fantasy because most of it is flippin' dreadful. I like certain fantasy works - and when they are good, they are the best books it's possible to read. Pullman is right. Tolkien's imitators, writers who have attempted to follow in his tradition, have just not been up to scratch.

Pullman wrote something based on ideas of Milton and Blake; Gaiman uses forms of graphic novels and ancient fairy tales combined with modern horrors; Clarke utilises the form and tone of the 18th century novel; Rowling makes use of the traditional 'school story'. No Elves (Dyson would be pleased ). Few unconquerable Dark Lords. Ambiguity. Peril.

[Bêthberry]

Quite by serendipity I came across this thread, now 13 years old. We had fun, didn't we?

I still enjoy Pullman, in fact, even more now than I did then. How much better I could have framed my points.

But the real purpose of my post now is simply to add some detail about Pullman. Oxford has given him an honorary degree. And in January 2019 (or was it 2018?) he was knighted for his services to literature. A knight bachelor.

The movie was terrible, as bad an adaptation as PJ's Hobbit. But the new TV serial is smashing.

[Mister Underhill]

Hey, lady! Fancy meeting you here! I almost couldn't believe my eyes.

"How much better I could have framed my points" is always a recurring thought every time I read through some of these old threads -- that or a cringe at the point I was attempting to make in the first place.

We watched the show too here at Chez Underhillo. My not so little anymore hobbit really grooved on the idea of a constant animal companion that you could talk to.

Your info about Pullman being knighted made me think of Wodehouse:

"Do they knight birds like him?"

"Oh, yes, sir. A gentleman of Mr. Trotter's prominence in the world of publishing is always in imminent danger of receiving the accolade."

"Danger? Don't these bozos like being knighted?"

"Not when they are of Mr. Trotter's retiring disposition, sir. He would find it a very testing ordeal. It involves wearing satin knee-breeches and walking backwards with a sword between the legs, not at all the sort of thing a sensitive gentleman of regular habits would enjoy."