Pullman rips on LOTR, others

[Lush]

Pullman's still at it, eh? Well, in regards to filming "His Dark Mojo" (haha) - he knows how the business works, I'll give him that much. And he's a wonderful writer and deserves all the success and adulation this little world of ours can offer.

However, the attacks on Tolkien are getting a bit tiring. First Hitchens, now this... I understand that for Pullman, it's probably very frustrating to invariably get lumped together with Tolkien when it comes to the way that HDM is assessed and placed in context of literary history. Which is, perhaps, why he feels the need to trash Tolkien repeteadly.

But doesn't he realize that, on some level, these attacks are hurting him, not Tolkien? That it's starting to look like the lady doth protest too much and all that?

He must. He's probably one of the smartest men alive in the world today. Maybe it's the media attention that's really at stake here. God knows, the culture is almost entirely soundbyte-driven these days. And who could pass up a soundbyte before the release of a major motion picture?

[Quempel]

I have read HDM, and if Pullman could get passed re-writing Paradise Lost to fit his own needs, I might have something more to say. At least Tolkien went all the way back to the European Mythos to draw from.

I guess I will stand as one of the immature dolts that read Tolkien.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Lush

However, the attacks on Tolkien are getting a bit tiring. First Hitchens, now this... I understand that for Pullman, it's probably very frustrating to invariably get lumped together with Tolkien when it comes to the way that HDM is assessed and placed in context of literary history. Which is, perhaps, why he feels the need to trash Tolkien repeteadly.

Or maybe, when he was still an unknown, one too many publishers sent back his manuscripts with advice to write something more like The Lord of the Rings, because that's what sells.

[Lush]

I think you've brought up an interesting point, N. Bookstore are littered with these carbon-copies of Tolkien - and that stuff sells also. Some of it is very good... some of it is like a romance novel with dragons.

Pullman strikes me as very cerebral and high-arty, but it may very well be that the stuff that imititates Tolkien has actually replaced Tolkien in his mind. Although I do not know how that man thinks. Just total speculation.

I'd ask him if I ever met him, but what if he totally loses it then?

[Nerwen]

He probably would!

[Guinevere]

Originally said byPhilipp Pullman:
"'Lord of the Rings,' which I take to be a trivial book."
“just fancy spun candy. There’s no substance to it.”
“ ‘The Lord of the Rings’ is fundamentally an infantile work,”

Grrr... reading such public statements really gets my hackles up!

Like gorthaur_cruel and Quempel mentioned,
this is really quite insulting to all of us who love Tolkien's works and have found meaning and timeless wisdom in them.
And how would Pullman explain the fact that there is so much secondary literature about Tolkien, so many educated and intelligent people occupying themselves with Tolkien's works since decades? Are all these people "immature dolts"?
Really, Philip Pullman should be forced to read Prof. Shippeys book "Tolkien, author of the Century"!!

I have read the "His Dark Materials Trilogy" this year, just so I could form an opinion on Pullman's own writing.
I must admit, that they were very thrilling to read, I liked especially the first volume, but the farther I got, the less I liked it, and the end was downright disappointing. (I agree much with William Cloud Hickly's post!)
They are well written, so one can't stop reading, but once finished, there's nothing that would make me go back and reread , quite unlike LotR.

Originally Posted by Lush

Pullman strikes me as very cerebral and high-arty, but it may very well be that the stuff that imititates Tolkien has actually replaced Tolkien in his mind.

Ha! I really think you are on the right track, Lush!

After all, Pullman said he read the LotR as an adolescent and it doesn't look like he has reread the book since then, let alone the Silmarillion. So his misjudgement on LotR derives from hazy memories of an adolescent (who obviously read it just as an adventure story, much like Peter Jackson did) or perhaps even from seeing the movies.

He is obviously biased by knowing that Tolkien was a devout Catholic.
Like Sir Kohran wrote in his excellent post, in LotR God (Eru) is never mentioned. The hobbits have no religion at all.
It's more about the Northern "Theory of Courage":doing the right thing, because it is right, and not because you get a reward in heaven. But obviously Pullman doesn't see or remember this at all.
And if he states that

“Tolkien is not interested in the way grownup, adult human beings interact with each other.

he should read "Aldarion and Erendis" .

[davem]

Brilliant demolition of HDM:
http://johncwright.livejournal.com/134046.html

[Alonna]

If Mr. Pullman thinks as highly of himself as he seems to based on his interviews, I wonder if he can explain why everyone is trashing the film version of his book. It is currently labeled as rotten by Rotten Tomatoes. Perhaps he should take a long look at why the film version of the "trivial book" turned out to be a far better film than the adaptation of his own.

[Nerwen]

Hang on. Any book can be made into a bad film. That doesn't prove anything.

[davem]

I think its plain that in HDM the message became so dominant in Pullman's mind that the story was thrown away. Pullman is a talented writer - but that's the problem: he's talented enough that he can present boring, illogical & frankly silly ideas in an exciting & interesting way.

The whole 'killing the ghosts' thing in HDM is typical. As the writer of the piece I linked to states, Pullman, in getting rid of God & Heaven & being unable to adopt an idea like reincarnation, is left with offering nothing at all - when you die that's it. You get dissipated into some kind of 'ocean' of matter.

Now that strikes me as being a pretty depressing concept, even if was true - all the people you care about, your friends, family & pets, will die & disappear forever & you'll never see them again, & when you die you'll also just disappear forever.

OK - let's say that's true - & for all I know it may be. It seems to me that the most honest response is to acknowledge the sadness of that, even to grieve over it. The most dishonest response is to present it as some kind of glorious 'liberation' from boredom. But, as I say, Pullman is a skilled writer & can present the ugly in a beautiful way, or the hopeless in a positive way. And too many readers fall for the style & miss the substance. I mean, could we not expect just one character out of all of Pullman's Multi-verses to mutter 'Ey up - that's a bit rubbish!' But no - everyone seems blissed out by how fantastic it is to dissipate into nothingness.

Its a bit like one of those 'well-meaning' adults who can't wait to tell children (for their own good, of course) that there's no Father Christmas or Tooth Fairy - some do it in a stark & simple way, others, the more 'creative' ones, do it in a 'positive', upbeat way, but in the end the children have some of the magic taken from their lives for no better reason than that an adult decided they would be better off without it.