'Spun Candy' anyone?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bb

I think Moorcock is reacting to--and I agree with Sauce here that they have a right to express their opinion--is the depiction of fantasy as an escapist form of literature that glories a past. There are others who, when faced with the kind of experiences Tolkien's generation faced, did not look back but envisioned a different future. I don't think Moorcock is invalidating Tolkien's experiences so much as saying something about England.

I don't think Tolkien's work could be described as 'as an escapist form of literature that glories a past', certainly not in the simplistic sense Moorcock implies. If anything John Garth's theory re the Somme - that Tolkien in writing the Fall of Gondolin – was seeing the world & the horrors of war 'through enchanted eyes' is much nearer the truth. Both Moorcock & Pullman are misrepresenting Tolkien's works & attitude in order (particularly in Moorcock's case) to attack something else (the 'British Establishment' , the 'old school tie', British Imperialism or whatever). I think Moorcock has actually set up an Aunt Sally in both cases. His conception of 'English' culture is as wrong as his conception of Tolkien.

Originally Posted by SpM

While there are some very well-expressed arguments made here against Pullman’s position, and I have no problem with that, there is also a slight undertone of “how dare he criticise Tolkien?”, an approach which automatically reacts against him simply because he does so.

No-one has taken the approach of attacking Pullman simply because he criticises Tolkien as far as I've read on this thread. We've attacked him because his criticisms have been ignorant, uniformed or simply insulting.