'Spun Candy' anyone?

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by davem

Clearly there is depth & meaning in Tolkien's work - if you look for it. Certainly it is moving, but principally it is Art, not didiacticism. I think this is what Pullman fails to grasp. To him the purpose of literature is to teach. The author is a teacher, passing on his wisdom to his readers, telling them the way things are - or should be. Hence, he doesn't argue with Lewis intention, only with the answers he offers. I suspect this is why he has a greater animus against Tolkien - because Tolkien isn't attempting to teach anything in LotR. He is attempting to create a work of Art. Pullman, therefore, cannot argue with Tolkien in the way he can argue with Lewis (hence Lewis is 'redeemable' - ie Pullman feels that if Lewis were still around he could be argued into adopting Pullman's point). What Pullman realises is that he cannot argue with Tolkien, because Tolkien would be simply standing by his Tree & smiling.

Firstly let me say that I loved HDM, it's one of my favourite books (well, sets of books, strictly speaking) and it had me very upset at points. Pullman conjoured up some truly startling creations, a wonderful main character and a vivid world. But he almost ruined it with the ending and all this business with God and Angels. That to me is argument enough to prove that 'message' novels can in fact sometimes be less worthy than 'entertainment' novels.

I would never claim that one type of book is better than the other, but a novel can be ruined by a heavy-handed or overbearing 'message'. Primarily we read fiction for pleasure; unless we're students of literature there's little point in wasting precious leisure time on a dull book. But likewise we don't always want to read frothy tripe. Unfortunately Pullman is of the school of thought that thinks literature (and no doubt films and TV too) must be 'worthy'; there are plenty of people in the opposite position who seek out the most mindless entertainments they can find.

Anyway, one thing we are overlooking is that Pullman must sell his books, and he seems to have identified a market. Those in the UK will recognise the middle-class, left-leaning type of person who likes to scoff at 'popular' entertainments and will know how much these types profess to despise Tolkien - usually coming up with the same tired old argument that Tolkien is 'racist' . Pullman is merely pandering to the audience he seeks, who will flip open the papers gathered around the Aga in the Islington 'farmhouse' kitchen on a Sunday morning and like to read cosy reviews they feel comfortable with. Exactly the sort of people who were booing like children who'd just seen the Pantomime Villain, at the Big Read final when Tolkien won bestest book ever.

Fact remains that Pullman wrote HDM which was amazing, and then almost ruined it by clumsily trying to make a point towards the end. HDM is also the only work he's put out that's broken out of the kids' corner at the library so I suspect he's been into the sour grapes a bit and is trying to intellectualise simple dislike.

[Roa_Aoife]

I have to say that I often amuse my friends by enjoying movies that don't always have a decent plot line (ie, Once upon a time in Mexico). And I am often amused by thier dislike of such movies. The difference is that they go to a movie to think, while I just go to fight off boredom. While I enjoy an intellectual satire as much as the next, and I can never get into slap stick humor, I don't go with the intent of being taught anything.

It can be the same way with books. (Though, admittedly, the plot line is far more important there.) If I want to be taught something, I'll head over to the non-fiction section and find a book on the subject I want to learn about. If I just want something entertaining to read, I'll wander into the fiction section and pick up something that looks like it will enterain me. While I enjoy Lewis, I find his storeies more enjoyable if I just ignore the lesson behind it.

I do remember starting the Golden Compass. I think I stopped at the 11th chapter, since nothing was getting anywhere and too many new plot lines were being introduced. I did pick up a distinct dislike of the Church, though.

Originally Posted by Enca

With risk of digressing into an inappropriate topic (for this forum, anyway), I'd just like to say that atheism is not a religion. It often requires faith, yes -- but faith in reason rather than a deity.

A religion is a set of beliefs or pricncipals that one follows with conviction and zeal. And they don't have faith in Reason- they have faith in Science, which is entirely different. I won't carry the debate farther than this here, but I'd be happy to continue it in private with anyone who feels like it. (I'm studying apologetics, much like Lewis did.)

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Religion requires the supernatural. Debate over.

I agree with Lal about the ending of HDM. I thought it was a pretty good story until the last book, where it just got very messy and unsatisfying and lame.

Pullman reminds me of those kids (and, who am I kidding, adults too) who dislike a certain band, and try to explain to everyone who'll listen why they are so bad. They often don't notice that the exact same criteria can be applied to another band whom they do appreciate.

Ok Phil, you don't like The Lord of the Rings. That's fine, lots of people don't like it. Just leave it at that and stop talking about it. Don't scramble about, trying to find justification and persuasive arguments to present to other people. When it's something as trivial as a storybook, just accept your likes and dislikes.

[drigel]

Oh yes Pullman... sigh
"real wrestle with real things.."
To me, it's all about what writers want to right, and what readers want to read. The spectrum of fiction is so broad, it's pointless to rank one variety over the other. I suspect Pullman is aggrevated by the fact the JRRT was and is more popular \ successfull than Lewis, his obvious favorite between the two. But to take a literary stance on the argument to forward the validity of the position is silly.

When comparing both works, I would say that LOTR is a purer form of fiction. One can easily see that both authors collaborated and conversed on the subject, on the macro and smaller themes. I see two approaches on the same strategy. Not in the "lesson of the story", or the "wrestle", rather the basic ingredients of the structure. Past that, we see 2 different authors with vastly different goals in mind. LOTR, by not having a wardrobe, elevates the reader (or, to put it another way, with LOTR - the reader is the wardrobe). Much more elegant and subtle. Finer craftsmanship. Many out there are like Pullman - themes in fiction need to have a point, and that point needs to be backed up via the story. The author needs to tell the reader the message, and then prove that the point of the message is valid and correct. And of course it's correct, why else would the author write the story about the grand point in the first place... ugh

Its apples vs oranges, rather than steak vs candy...

Originally Posted by Bêthberry
And Tolkien never had any axes of his own to grind. *cough*Shakespeare*cough*

dont forget to add all things French to the grinding

[davem]

The odd thing is that Pullman is so angry about LotR. Its not simply that he dislikes it - if he did he would just ignore it. It seems that he has set himself up as some kind of 'Dragon-slayer', & wants to destroy it, convince us its trivial, meaningless, bad. Yet he's not taking the 'Its all racist' tack, but rather the 'Its all pointless & silly' tack. Yet he refuses to explain why it speaks so deeply & powerfully so so many people.

It seems that his view is that unless a work of Art has a message to preach, it is valueless. He even values a book with a message he disagrees with (Lion, Witch & Wardrobe) more highly than a book with no 'message' (LotR). This is utilitarianism, materialism, taken to its extreme. If it has no practical use it must be destroyed. It is exactly the kind of 'Machine' thinking that Tolkien presents us with in Saruman & Sauron. I could see Saruman writing HDM In fact the 'message' of HDM could be summed up in Saruman's words to Gandalf in Orthanc.

Pullman's condemnation of Tolkien: "He’s interested in maps and plans and languages and codes.” sums up his attitude perfectly - 'maps and plans and languages and codes' are unnecessary in his opinion - they serve no practical purpose, & hence are BAD THINGS. They do not communicate a message to the reader, so they are 'sinful' & 'irredeemable'. Pulllman's final 'vision' of a new world is one where other realities are forever cut off & people get down to practical things & forget all that 'fantasy' stuff - trying to access those other realities (those 'secondary worlds') is dangerous, a threat to the worlds' survival. Fantasy is not necessary is Pullman's message. He even stated in an interview that he was using fantasy to undermine fantasy. Lewis wasn't wrong to open the wardrobe for children - he was wrong because at the end he didn't have the Professor turn it into firewood & send the children back home to dodge the bombs, because the bombs are real, practical things.