'Spun Candy' anyone?

[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.