Pullman rips on LOTR, others

[Gwathagor]

I have only read the last ten pages or so of HDM, so this is very helpful and interesting. With my limited knowledge of Pullman, I'd have to say that my first impression of him is a rather sour one, based on his criticisms of Lewis and Tolkien ("infantile", "immature", "dolts"). He comes off as pathetic, whiny, and self-centered; I am inclined to dislike and ignore him.

[Lyta_Underhill]

And remember who he is, a member of the British Chattering Classes, and one thing they Do Not Like is Fantasy. To do what Pullman has done and produce a work, nay, a trilogy of fantasy novels is tantamount to heresy.

Thanks, Lal, for enlightening this backwoods Tennessee-American about an important aspect of Pullman's personality in a cultural context. I haven't really followed the brouhaha concerning the author himself that much, but I did enjoy the books quite a lot. I think every country and culture has a version of these "Chattering Classes." My own father disparages my tendency to base many of my moral values and spiritual truths on things I read in Lord of the Rings. Truth is everywhere, whether it be nestled in Fangorn Forest or hiding in the particles of Dust along a fantastic Northern Bridge. I enjoyed LOTR, Narnia AND His Dark Materials, all for different reasons. It doesn't matter what the authors think of other authors, what personal conceits underlie a writer's personality, or what political strategems are employed by writers to cater to a niche. The words speak for themselves; the worlds shine through the words, and Pullman did accede to the idea that the story lives in the interface between reader and author. There is no critic who can stand in this realm if one truly reads the words on the page. Second-guessing by authorial temperament seems to be a dangerous business, doesn' it?

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hickli

What struck me about HDM was how fundamentally *adolescent* its thesis was- that all good would derive from sexual liberation and casting off authority. Nietzche for bratty teenagers.

I was put off by exactly the same atmosphere of juvenile posturing. It's also evident in Pullman's comments about Lewis' treatment of Susan Pevensey in the Narnia books, in which he appears entirely to miss the point: Lewis isn't casting his character out for growing interested in boys, but for abandoning her faith in favour of parties and nylons. Sexual maturity and only thinking about clothes and social gatherings are not the same thing, and only a fool or a charlatan would confuse them.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by The Squatter of Amon Rûdh

I was put off by exactly the same atmosphere of juvenile posturing. It's also evident in Pullman's comments about Lewis' treatment of Susan Pevensey in the Narnia books, in which he appears entirely to miss the point: Lewis isn't casting his character out for growing interested in boys, but for abandoning her faith in favour of parties and nylons. Sexual maturity and only thinking about clothes and social gatherings are not the same thing, and only a fool or a charlatan would confuse them.

Yes, it is so very inappropriate to show up for Sunday service in nylons, and likely directly displaying the ill after affects of Saturday night partying. If only Susan had become interested in hats and the modest covering of one's head with them, that kind of vanity (and sinful coverup) would without a doubt have escaped Lewis' chastisement.

[davem]

I don't think Lewis can be exempted from criticism - though I take Squatter's point that what Lewis is attacking is Susan's materialism, rather than her sexual maturity. For one thing, Lewis chose one of his female characters to be cast into outer darkness rather than one of the males.

Of course, The Last Battle is seriously weird anyway, & I wouldn't have been surprised if Susan had been kept out of Paradise for an unhealthy obsession with rabbit hutches ... if you ask me, she was well out of the whole thing.

[Gwathagor]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Yes, it is so very inappropriate to show up for Sunday service in nylons, and likely directly displaying the ill after affects of Saturday night partying. If only Susan had become interested in hats and the modest covering of one's head with them, that kind of vanity (and sinful coverup) would without a doubt have escaped Lewis' chastisement.

I don't understand what you mean at all.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Gwathagor

I don't understand what you mean at all.

I suppose you could put that down to my being one of the folks who Squatter anathamatised in his post. I wasn't aware that at the Barrow Downs we stigmatise people for holding opinions contrary to our own however much we delight in excoriating the opinions.

Originally Posted by davem

I don't think Lewis can be exempted from criticism - though I take Squatter's point that what Lewis is attacking is Susan's materialism, rather than her sexual maturity. For one thing, Lewis chose one of his female characters to be cast into outer darkness rather than one of the males.

The problem with any kind of allegorical work like Narnia is that their images, symbols, events, plot lines get all tied in with the major tendencies of the bit being allegorized.