'Spun Candy' anyone?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

And then he continues by examining how the story treats true Christianity rather shabbily--even drawing on Tolkien to support his point.

I think Pullman's analysis of Christianity is a frankly a bit silly. As an athiest with an axe to grind one cannot reallly expect an unbiassed analysis from him but his statements are hardly even worth considering. Lewis' Christianity is perfectly orthodox & fairly mainstream as far as I can see. As a non-Christain myself I don't get any sense that the philosophy behind the boooks is 'life-hating' or that Lewis is saying anyone is 'better off dead'. The whole point (perfectly in line with Christian teaching) is that after death we become more alive, that death is merely a transition to a fuller life in another state. It is actually life affirming in that it sees life as so wonderful that it offers even more, even more intense life. Certainly it is hopeful - Pullman condemns Lewis for hating life, but Lewis offers the possibility of eternal life to his characters while he himself offers only disolution & nothingness after death.

I don't think he can actually claim much support from Tolkien - the quote he gives from Tolkien is not a condemnation of Lewis theology but of his playing around with myth.

Perhaps what Pullman cannot abide is a situation in which people flock to a story without any strong sense of its consequences of its world view. He dislikes thoughtless reading and admiration for something which might be at odds with the general tenor of culture as he sees it? That is, he dislikes pop culture and would rather we pay closer attention to real story?

To quote from the interview Squatter linked to yesterday:

He finds it surprising and pleasing that The Lord of the Rings has had such a success. It seems to him that nowadays almost any kind of fiction is mishandled, through not being sufficiently enjoyed. He thinks that there is now a tendency both to believe and teach in schools and colleges that “enjoyment” is an illiterate reaction; that if you are a serious reader, you should take the construction to pieces; find and analyse sources, dissect it into symbols, and debase it into allegory. Any idea of actually reading the book for fun is lost.

“It seems to me comparable to a man who having eaten anything, from a salad to a complete and well-planned dinner, uses an emetic, and sends the results for chemical analysis.”

Its no coincidence that Pullman was a teacher before he became a full time writer - it is clear that his approach to fiction is exactly as Tolkien describes here: "a tendency both to believe and teach in schools and colleges that “enjoyment” is an illiterate reaction; that if you are a serious reader, you should take the construction to pieces; find and analyse sources, dissect it into symbols, and debase it into allegory. Any idea of actually reading the book for fun is lost."

This is exactly what Pullman has done in his reading of LotR. The work cannot just be enjoyed, it must be taken to pieces, broken up to find its 'meaning', which 'meaning' must be analysed to see whether it is 'relevant' to 'the youth of today' or 'the man on the Clapham omnibus'. Will the reading of this book make the readers better, more constructive members of society? Will it tell them what we want them to know?

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by davem

Its no coincidence that Pullman was a teacher before he became a full time writer - it is clear that his approach to fiction is exactly as Tolkien describes here: "a tendency both to believe and teach in schools and colleges that “enjoyment” is an illiterate reaction; that if you are a serious reader, you should take the construction to pieces; find and analyse sources, dissect it into symbols, and debase it into allegory. Any idea of actually reading the book for fun is lost."

I'm afraid I'll have to defend Pullman on that point as I don't think he would agree with that method of reading at all. See my earlier post number 34 on this thread and The Isis Lecture for what Pullman thinks about the analytical method of teaching literature and English language. He advocates a creative approach, and is very much against the idea of too much adherence to and analysis of structure.

I still think that he 'kind of knows' what he wants to say, but he is getting his messages confused. It does seem that with his statement on 'spun candy' he would indeed advocate Structuralism and all that malarkey, but he's actually more in favour of a creative free for all and is closer to Tolkien than he dares to acknowledge. The main differences seem to lie in the moral messages (that's probably not the right term, but I can't think of the exact way of saying what I mean right now; oh, the irony!) the two wish/ed to put across.

[The Saucepan Man]

I think that there is a misunderstanding here over Pullman's approach, and that is what is leading to the assumption that his opinions are contradictory.

I have not re-read all of the materials linked to here, so I may be wrong, but the sense I get is not that Pullman "requires" a story to have a message, in the sense of preaching a particular doctrine, philosophy or worldview, but that it be "weighty" in the sense of providing material for thought.

Certainly, most of the materials here suggest that he subscribes to the Tolkienian view of the importance of a piece of fiction as entertainment, and I would agree with Lalwendë's assessment in this regard above. But it seems to me that Pullman's definition of an entertaining story is one which is (or, perhaps more correctly, which he finds to be) thought-provoking. That is not to say that he regards it necessary to pull a story apart in order to find the depth within it, the analytical approach which Tolkien disdains above. Rather, he considers that a story which provides material for thought (even if such thought occurs at a less than conscious level) is, essentially, a more entertaining one than one which does not. (The assessment of whether a particular story provides such material is, of course, a subjective one, although I am sure that we could all agree on examples of those stories which do not.)

His comments on LotR concerning its "triviality" and "spun candy" nature indicate quite clearly that he does not find such depth in LotR. This links in with the thread on Psychological Depth, which I started some time ago on the basis of a quote from Pullman. He finds that the characters lack psychological depth, that there is no "weight" to them and he cannot therefore regard them or their story as providing anything useful to say on the realities of life (as he perceives them). For him, LotR is merely the account of a series of events linked up with nice descriptions of the landscape. It has no depth. There is nothing there which "grabs" him from an intellectual or (I presume) emotinal point of view.

If I am right in my assessment of his approach, I rather agree with Pullman on many points here. I would agree that, from my perspective, a story is likely to be more entertaining if it has depth to it and provides material for thought. I would aso agree that, to an extent, many of the principal characters of LotR lack psychological depth. Where I would disagree with him is that it follows from this that LotR does not provide material for thought or, indeed, that there is no such material within it. That said, and as I have stated earlier, different people have different tastes and, if LotR does not "grab" him intellectually and emotionally in the same way that it grabs others, then no one can force him to like it.

And I would still maintain that, even though not all of Pullman's comments that we have been discussing here derive from "baiting" by journalists, LotR and (to a lesser degree) the Narnia books remain the principle peaks in the landscape within which he works and, professionally (as a writer), he is obliged to grapple with them, both within his own mind, and also publicly when discussing his works and their place within the fantasy genre.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I'm afraid I'll have to defend Pullman on that point as I don't think he would agree with that method of reading at all. See my earlier post number 34 on this thread and The Isis Lecture for what Pullman thinks about the analytical method of teaching literature and English language. He advocates a creative approach, and is very much against the idea of too much adherence to and analysis of structure.

Well, I think there's a difference between what he says & what he actually does. He may condemn the analytical method but he still cannot resist breaking the story apart to find out what it 'means', what its 'message' is. He demands it have a message if it is to be taken seriously. He certainly cannot (it seems) enjoy a story simply as a story.

If we miss out ' that if you are a serious reader, you should take the construction to pieces' its difficult to argue that Tolkien was right about Pullman's approach:

a tendency both to believe and teach in schools and colleges that “enjoyment” is an illiterate reaction; find and analyse sources, dissect it into symbols, and debase it into allegory. Any idea of actually reading the book for fun is lost."

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

He may condemn the analytical method but he still cannot resist breaking the story apart to find out what it 'means', what its 'message' is.

Davem, please state your justification for this assertion, by reference to Pullman's own words.

Originally Posted by davem

Well, I think there's a difference between what he says & what he actually does.

As I have indicated, I see no contradiction.

Pullman, like Tolkien, disdains the analytical, dissective approach and asserts that the primary aim of reading should be enjoyment. For him personally to enjoy a book, it must have some "depth" that resonates with him, which provokes thought in him. He finds no such depth in LotR. Therefore he does not enjoy LotR. Being a fantasy writer (and commentator) himself, it is inevitable that circumstances will arise in which he will be required to explain his feelings towards LotR, given the novel's stature within the fanatsy genre.

Where's the contradiction?

[davem]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Davem, please state your justification for this assertion, by reference to Pullman's own words.

I would think the fact that he has looked for 'meaning' in it, found none & therefore dismissed it as 'spun candy' rather than simply being able to enjoy it for what it is, not to mention that he has obviously ripped the Narnia books to bits in in order to 'critique' them would be enough to justify my statement.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

I would think the fact that he has looked for 'meaning' in it, found none & therefore dismissed it as 'spun candy' rather than simply being able to enjoy it for what it is ...

I disagree. He expected depth from it, found none sufficent to satisfy his personal tastes/interest and therefore did not find it entertaining.

Originally Posted by davem

... not to mention that he has obviously ripped the Narnia books to bits in in order to 'critique' them ...

There is a difference between advocating the dissection and analysis of books and automatically approaching every book on this basis as a matter of course, on the one hand, and feeling obliged to do so with regard to paticular works as a de facto fantasy writer/commentator on the fantasy genre, on the other. Pullman's critique of the Narnia books is based upon the latter approach, not the former.

It appears that, in contrast to his reaction to LotR, Pullman found depth within the Narnia books, but it was based upon a philosophy/tradition with which he profoundly disagreed.

I still see no inherent contradiction in his words and nor do I see much of a basis for labelling him ignorant, other than the fact that his philosophy and tastes differ from your own.

[davem]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

It appears that, in contrast to his reaction to LotR, Pullman found depth within the Narnia books, but it was based upon a philosophy/tradition with which he profoundly disagreed.

I still see no inherent contradiction in his words and nor do I see much of a basis for labelling him ignorant, other than the fact that his philosophy and tastes differ from your own.

I think anyone who thinks the Narnia books are 'deep' but LotR is not is a bit shallow.

[HerenIstarion]

Originally Posted by SpM

He expected depth from it, found none sufficent to satisfy his personal tastes/interest and therefore did not find it entertaining

Verily so, and it would have been all just right and proper, if Mr.Pullman just contented himself with mere statement of dislike. After all, it's again just right and proper to like/dislike any piece of art, and also right and proper to state one's impression.

But, and grave 'but' at that, where Mr.Pullman crosses the line and, in my opinion, deserves davem's ire (mine too), is aggresive and mean attacks he lets himself sink to. Mentor's tone does not help either, and even so his attacks would have been acceptable in proper place, say, in literary discussion on a forum like BD here - let him state his points and let us state ours, that would at least be honest. But lo - he attacks Tolkien from pulpits and places where he's the sole preacher. Irritable, to say the least.

Imagine some writer (famous enogh, that is) saying things about Pullman Pullman himself says about Tolkien, but evading direct dialogue with Pullman on the subject. I would dearly love to watch PP's reaction, now I would