'Spun Candy' anyone?

[MatthewM]

Thanks for the Letter quotes Beth, but I didn't understand anything Tolkien was saying on Shakesphere, as he usually speaks in riddles. I couldn't tell if it was for or against. Maybe it was neither? Ah well, it's not what the topic is about anyway.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by MatthewM

Thanks for the Letter quotes Beth, but I didn't understand anything Tolkien was saying on Shakesphere, as he usually speaks in riddles. I couldn't tell if it was for or against. Maybe it was neither? Ah well, it's not what the topic is about anyway.

It seems to me that Tolkien feels the same way as I do about studying drama texts from books, that it just isn't satisfying, and it does the plays an injustice. I always found myself frustrated reading plays out of books, I wanted to see the plays and hear them. I had to ask myself if people in Shakespeare's day would have sat in earnest groups reading his plays from the page. No, they would have been in rough, bawdy, crowded theatres watching the action, listening to these lines being said aloud, and probably shouting and heckling and stuff too.

I can't read Marlowe's Doctor Faustus without constantly stopping to visualise it, and wish there was a modern film of it to watch with all the mad stuff made real on the screen. I've seen the Revenger's Tragedy performed where they handed out plastic capes for the front row audience to wear as the actors flung around fake blood and raw meat. That's what Drama's about, noise and action, and singing and hearing someone read the poetry aloud. I think that is exactly what Tolkien's getting at.

Anyway, back on topic...

Tolkien's work exists within its own world, its own universe. Arda is a different place. Pullman's world however, exists alongside our own world. I wonder just how much Pullman hates the notion of an entire other world? He mentions Narnia which is also accessible from our own world. I wonder if he is reacting against this detachment from the Real World that Arda has? And I wonder if he has read (or even is aware of) Tolkien's experimental fictions such as The Lost Road which tried to link Arda to the Real World? I suspect he never will know about this as he has no desire to explore Tolkien's work further.

What he is missing with the accusation of 'spun sugar' aimed at Tolkien's writing is something important in literature, subtlety. Tolkien's work has a grip on and deals with some of the biggest issues of the modern age, such as environmental disaster, totalitarianism, war and the enslavement of mankind to the 'machine' of society. He also has incredible characters such as Gollum who make us stop and think about who and what is 'good' and 'evil'. In Tolkien's work, this is all put across with subtlety. His style is poetic, and by that I mean his work works on many levels like a poem does; there is the surface 'plot' but underneath are the layers - language revealing history, events having several interpretations, dialogue revealing character rather than internal monologue doing so (the usual modern form).

This may reveal a lot about the two writers' reading preferences - certainly Tolkien was fond of old epics, usually in the poetic form, where a few lines can reveal a whole host of details and allow for many speculations.

What I found in HDM was a wonderful work, which itself had a lot of potential for speculation and mystery, but which fell down towards the end with some very shaky storytelling; it was clear that the 'point' was more important than the 'story' towards the end as so little of it rang true. I do suspect that he began in much the same way that Tolkien did, just writing, and the 'point' only became apparent at a later stage, at too late a stage to correctly tie it in with the plot. In any case, he clearly could not let go of the 'magic' himself as he later produced a short story about Lyra and a 'Book Of Dust' may be written; holding true to his own 'point', surely Lyra should just now 'grow up'? So he's not that different to Tolkien after all.

[Encaitare]

Whilst reading Letters yesterday, I came across some interesting excerpts that go with this topic pretty well. The particular letter is #183, "a comment, apparently written for Tolkien's own satisfaction and not sent or shown to anyone else, on 'At the End of the Quest, Victory', a review of The Return of the King by W. H. Auden in the New York Times Book Review, 22 January 1956.

Originally Posted by JRRT

I believe that it is precisely because I did not try, and have never thought of trying to 'objectify' my personal experience of life that the account of the Quest of the Ring is successful in giving pleasure to Auden (and others). Probably it is also the reason, in many cases, why it has failed to please some readers and critics. The story is not about JRRT at all, and is at no point an attempt to allegorize his experience of life -- for that is what the objectifying of his subjective experience in a tale must mean, if anything.

[...]

Men do go, and have in history gone on journeys and quests, without any intention of acting out allegories of life.

[Bêthberry]

I haven't read these links yet, but here are Pullman's lectures in full.

Miss Goddard's Grave


Isis Speech


Guardian article on teaching


The Dark Side of Narnia

[Tevildo]

I also thought this might be helpful. It's the full text of an interview in which Pullman discusses a number of topics, including his views on Tolkien and Lewis.

Here.

I find the man fascinating! There are things about him I love and many others I can't stand. I love what he says about the teaching of literature and how children should be allowed to enjoy things and not just be forced to analyze them. That was one of Bethberry's links. I think he must have been a fly on the wall during some of the classes that I've taken!

[HerenIstarion]

Is this part of what it means to carve out one's own personal space as a writer?

No, I don't think it is that delibarate or conscious.

[I believe] 'Tolkien vs Shakespeare' is not that much open dislike but rather a regret - 'The Great who surely could, and could well, [deliberately] did not' kind of feeling

[I believe] Pullman vs Tolkien is 'play for audience' for sure, but more than this it is rather utter opposition of worldviews. 'There are enemies, and this is the greatest. Let us beat him on his own ground' kind of feeling

[Lalwendë]

The Isis Lecture is very interesting.

He points out that teaching in English schools is now very mechanical and he is correct; there is very little room for creativity on the part of the teacher and is one of the reasons I'd never ever go back to that job. I hate the way kids only read extracts of books, and do meaningless analysis. Vile. But I used to show kids how to structure a story, and there is nothing wrong in teaching how to do this - it not only can have benefits in structuring creative work but helps in essay writing for other subjects; discipline of thought is not always bad. However, there is indeed a time and a place for this, and I used to show that structures don't always work, and I certainly wouldn't allocate time slots for that kind of work - that's madness, or else the spectre of HM Inspectors breathing down the neck of the teacher. I once had a run in with one of the early inspectors who challenged me for writing in capitals on a blackboard (yes, we did call them blackboards). I pointed out that in a freezing, tumble down old shed in the wilds of Barnsley some of the kids were a very long way from the blackboard and couldn't see otherwise.

It's all the result though of utilitarianism. Nowadays, education is there not to turn us into fey little poets or freely expressive dancers but into insurance brokers and hairdressers and IT support officers. I know this because I'm right at the middle of it all. Some kids actually do want that though; I've a friend who hated anything remotely artistic at school, she just wanted to learn to type and do office work. The problem is that any child who is not bright, not a swot, is poor, black or male will be steered into the path of usefulness.

What's this got to do with Pullman Vs Tolkien anyway? What amuses me is that Tolkien clearly did not 'plan' his writing, he just sat down and let rip (so to speak ) and he's even said things about him 'finding out' what really happened, which suggests the kind of joyful free for all authorial chaos that Pullman advocates. Yet Pullman does plan his writing! What he says in the article posted by Tevildo demonstrates this.

The other amusing point is that Pullman in the Isis lecture calls for more story telling in the classroom, for more narrative. He also calls for more narrative in Tevildo's article, and bemoans modern literary experimentation. Yet this is what he does not like about Tolkien.

I find it frustrating really. From what he says, he ought to love Tolkien, but he does not. Is this just another case of someone intellectualising simple dislike?

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

No, I don't think it is that delibarate or conscious.

[I believe] 'Tolkien vs Shakespeare' is not that much open dislike but rather a regret - 'The Great who surely could, and could well, [deliberately] did not' kind of feeling

[I believe] Pullman vs Tolkien is 'play for audience' for sure, but more than this it is rather utter opposition of worldviews. 'There are enemies, and this is the greatest. Let us beat him on his own ground' kind of feeling

Originally Posted by Lal

The other amusing point is that Pullman in the Isis lecture calls for more story telling in the classroom, for more narrative. He also calls for more narrative in Tevildo's article, and bemoans modern literary experimentation. Yet this is what he does not like about Tolkien.

I find it frustrating really. From what he says, he ought to love Tolkien, but he

The more I look back at HDM, the more I become very curious about Pullman's attitude towards Tolkien's brand of fantasy.

HI, I think you are on to something in the way Tolkien regards Shakespeare. He does admire the man's writing and talent. Otherwise, why would he bother going to see performances? Yet what I think is significant is how Tolkien's view of elves and other creatures of fairy differed substantially from Shakespeare's. It is possible that these depictions grated enough on Tolkien to cause him to reuminate upon the way to represent fairy. In that sense, Tolkien stood on Shakespeare's shoulder to see farther. You are right that this differs in quality from Pullman. I rather think that Tolkien still had very much the old gracious politeness about him, a sense of courtesy and fair play, the social civility which our age lacks to a very great extent.

Difference of world view. Admittedly, Pullman is a declared atheist, but many Christians have come to the defense of HDM as an attack not on true faith but on the wretched consequence of dogma and religious oppression, the misuse of church power and authority. As far as I can recall from HDM, it is the wrongful use of authority which draws Pullman's great ire. Yes, he eradicates this woeful and oppressive figure The Authority, but what does it mean if we interpret this figure as God?If we say that Pullman is attacking Christianity, does that mean we accept as right and true the depiction of the Church and The authority? In some measure I think Pullman's attitude towards authority, while differing from Tolkien's, might not be radically opposite.

As for Pullman not loving Tolkien, I took a look at the final chapter of volume three last night. It ends in the Botanic Garden in Lyra's Oxford, which of course is not "our" Oxford. Yet Lyra's daemon runs up his favourite tree, a large old pine. Now that I've visited the Botanic Garden in Oxford, I know this tree, as it was Tolkien's favourite tree also and the last known photograph we have of him shows him standing beside it and touching it. I cannot help but think that Pullman knows of this. Why do this? Why the pine and not any of the several other trees in the Botanic Garden? Also, on his third planet there are trees that are silver and gold. I'm sure that if one went through HDM one could find some very fascinating perspectives of Tolkien's work, worked into Pullman's.

Yet Pullman bemoans Tolkien. Why? When I look closely at Pullman's writing, I see a great many metaphors and comparisons and references to the natural world, the natural world which science has made known to us. He talks about cell growth, he talks about nuclear engergy, he talks about many kinds of scientific knowledge. Is it that Tolkien's fantasy does not partake of this materialism which draws his ire?

Pullman certainly has a particular respect for Imagination, but perhaps it is a different imagination than that of Tokien's? To say that their differences relate to Pullmann's atheism might be barking up the wrong tree. That is incidental to the more profound difference, a difference between views of what fantasy and imagination are.

I'm not sure how valid this, but I thought I would throw it out for discussion.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bb

I'm sure that if one went through HDM one could find some very fascinating perspectives of Tolkien's work, worked into Pullman's.

And of course, Will loses two fingers to the Subtle knife - Pullman always has to try & go one better than Tolkien it seems

Found this [/QUOTE]here

Philip Pullman, author of the trilogy collectively entitled His Dark Materials, denies that he is a fantasy author. Rather, his books are works of “stark realism” illuminated by fantastic elements (as Daniel P. Moloney notes in his deadly accurate review in these pages, May 2001). The fantastic elements are easily integrated into the ordinary life of Lyra’s world and plenty of other parallel universes, if not our own: witches, subtle knives, alethiometers, archangels, and specters all have their place without the slightest self–consciousness about their magical properties.

But the trilogy’s conclusion imitates, in an odd and truncated sort of way, the other fantasies considered here. The heroine Lyra is prophesied from the beginning to be “the end of destiny” in her role as the new Eve. Here it means the long–overdue disintegration of God the Authority and the defeat of Metatron the killjoy angel—no more dictation from on high of the fates of men below. Yet this happy victory necessitates an unhappy ending (for reasons not entirely clear): the subtle knife, which cuts passageways between the universes, must be broken once and for all and its windows permanently closed. No more adventures, but no more bad guys (or gods), either.

Predictably enough, the conclusion is absurdly moralistic. Now that the persecuting church has been subdued and hell emptied out, sentient beings are free, and not just free but obliged, to pursue the Republic of Heaven, Pullman’s embarrassingly anticlimactic solution to his trilogy’s dilemma. On the last page of the last book, Lyra muses to her daemon Pantalaimon that the Kingdom of Heaven is blessedly finished, so now all the people can devote their energies to this life on this earth rather than worrying about the next. And it entails, she realizes in a convenient flash of insight, being “all those difficult things like cheerful and kind and curious and patient, and we’ve got to study and think and work hard, all of us, in all our different worlds.” This goes well beyond the philosophical fallacy of deriving an “ought” from an “is.” It’s deriving an “ought” from an “isn’t.”

The problem of His Dark Materials is the same as that of The Dark is Rising: power, in itself, is the ultimate good. The winners are the ones with the most power, and so they (and their author) can define their goals as righteous. Power is not forsaken but democratically distributed, and the excesses of power in pursuit of that distribution are never seriously addressed. The disturbing questions that remain are quietly covered over in the name of the brotherhood of all mankind. The knife is broken and then it’s back to the age–old conundrum of how we live together. It is deliciously ironic, though, that a series so determined to disprove original sin is forced at the end to demonstrate its unassailable existence with a concluding ethical plea.

Not saying I agree with all the author's points on Fantasy literature but I think her analysis of HDM is spot on.

I think its clear that for alll his arguments to the contrary Pullman is not simply attacking organised religion in HDM but the desire for (as well as the hope in) anything 'beyond the Circles of the World. All Pullman offers us instead is the 'task of

being “all those difficult things like cheerful and kind and curious and patient, and we’ve got to study and think and work hard, all of us, in all our different worlds.”

Now, to me. this is Tolkien's starting point in LotR. In other words, Tolkien's Epic starts at the point Pulllman's leaves off. Pullman's 'solution' to our human dilemma is Tolkien's 'Question' - the Question he takes over a thousand pages to propound, & never really answers (because there isn't an answer). Simply put, Pullman believes that there is a solution to all Mankind's problems - 'Let's be nice to each other & read some books so we'll get clever & then everything will be Ok' (till we all die & are forgotten). Tolkien doesn't belives the solution to our problems is so easy. There is only stark courage in the face of the Dragon & the willingness to fight the Long Defeat. And for Tolkien the Dragon is a reality - the most real of all reallities. For Pullman the Dragon is a delusion - it doesn't have to be fought because it doesn't exist - or if it does its simply 'selfishness' & the refusal to read enough proper books & apply ourselves to our studies & be 'nice' to each other.