Pullman rips on LOTR, others - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Folwren · 01-03-2008, 03:53 PM

Lal, you really miss the point of Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia. You shouldn't carry on so about something you obviously don't understand. You only make yourself appear foolish and snobbish. I know better than to think that you really are foolish, but if I didn't, I'm afraid I'd have to think very poorly of you after that last post...

You'll notice I don't go on for pages about how awful Pullman's writing and beliefs are.

-- Folwren

Lalwendë · 01-03-2008, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Folwren

Lal, you really miss the point of Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia. You shouldn't carry on so about something you obviously don't understand. You only make yourself appear foolish and snobbish. I know better than to think that you really are foolish, but if I didn't, I'm afraid I'd have to think very poorly of you after that last post...

You'll notice I don't go on for pages about how awful Pullman's writing and beliefs are.

-- Folwren

Sorry Folwren, but I do have to say this is very peculiar. I do happen not to like Narnia nor Lewis (though the film and TV adaptations have been immensely enjoyable and Shadowlands has me in bits). I first picked up Narnia 23 years ago and have struggled to find enjoyment in them ever since. Yes there are nice things in them and nice passages, but they simply do not work as good literature for me, and for much of those past 23 years I have been examining why they do not work.

You're quite free to go on about how awful Pullman is, as many have done on this thread (and indeed as davem does at home) as I am quite adult enough to discuss this coherently with anyone and not think poorly of them merely for their taste in books.

If you think I have an issue with Christian writers then I must ask why I enjoy John Masefield so much...

Hookbill the Goomba · 01-03-2008, 04:30 PM

Would we really be making such a fuss about Narnia if it was one of the male characters who had become interested in lipstick nylons and party invitations... Erm... Actually, we probably would come to think of it...

You can look at this issue in any way you want and draw whatever conclusions you wish and the stories themselves don't change an awful lot over all. Weather or not you enjoy them is another matter entirely. The question 'did you understand it?' does not always equal 'did you enjoy it?' I didn't, and still don't fully, understand The Last Battle, but found it an interesting read and did actually like it.

I think nowadays it is becoming increasingly difficult to make a fantasy without having such interpretations and themes planted on it, some of which the writer may never have had in mind. I think Lewis said something along these lines in something or other. Narnia comes into a lot of criticism for the villains wearing turbans and how that makes it all racist. But I'm not sure. It may be a case of needing a villain and the seeds in the past (namely in The Horse and his Boy) have suggested one such people who could be called upon to play the roll. But I'm no mind reader and cannot say for sure and would probably have to give Narnia a proper reread at some point to give a full account.

In terms of Pullman he set out to have his villains as representing a certain group, namely the religious establishement. I think this is where he comes into his criticism. By saying it outright he loses the subtlety that he could have had by leaving it ambiguous and open to interpretation. But then again, he probably didn't want it to be open to interpretation.

I think this is why we are still talking about Tolkien. He rarely, if ever, gives concrete 'this = that' analogies for anything. There are sometimes rough outlines, (his comment on what the function of each race was in a BBC interview springs to mind) but he says this in a glib fashion that suggests 'well it could be anything.' And so it can run away with you. Pullman obviously wants his message to dominate the reader's attention. This is by no means a bad thing if you agree with him or not. Beginning the book with the 'This person is wrong and everything he says is a lie' stance is not going to give you an enjoyable read in most cases.

Yes I am comfortable on this fence.

01-03-2008, 03:53 PM	#1
Folwren Messenger of Hope Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: In a tiny, insignificant little town in one of the many States. Posts: 5,076	Lal, you really miss the point of Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia. You shouldn't carry on so about something you obviously don't understand. You only make yourself appear foolish and snobbish. I know better than to think that you really are foolish, but if I didn't, I'm afraid I'd have to think very poorly of you after that last post... You'll notice I don't go on for pages about how awful Pullman's writing and beliefs are. -- Folwren __________________ A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading. - C.S. Lewis

01-03-2008, 04:30 PM	#3
Hookbill the Goomba Alive without breath Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: On A Cold Wind To Valhalla Posts: 5,912	Would we really be making such a fuss about Narnia if it was one of the male characters who had become interested in lipstick nylons and party invitations... Erm... Actually, we probably would come to think of it... You can look at this issue in any way you want and draw whatever conclusions you wish and the stories themselves don't change an awful lot over all. Weather or not you enjoy them is another matter entirely. The question 'did you understand it?' does not always equal 'did you enjoy it?' I didn't, and still don't fully, understand The Last Battle, but found it an interesting read and did actually like it. I think nowadays it is becoming increasingly difficult to make a fantasy without having such interpretations and themes planted on it, some of which the writer may never have had in mind. I think Lewis said something along these lines in something or other. Narnia comes into a lot of criticism for the villains wearing turbans and how that makes it all racist. But I'm not sure. It may be a case of needing a villain and the seeds in the past (namely in The Horse and his Boy) have suggested one such people who could be called upon to play the roll. But I'm no mind reader and cannot say for sure and would probably have to give Narnia a proper reread at some point to give a full account. In terms of Pullman he set out to have his villains as representing a certain group, namely the religious establishement. I think this is where he comes into his criticism. By saying it outright he loses the subtlety that he could have had by leaving it ambiguous and open to interpretation. But then again, he probably didn't want it to be open to interpretation. I think this is why we are still talking about Tolkien. He rarely, if ever, gives concrete 'this = that' analogies for anything. There are sometimes rough outlines, (his comment on what the function of each race was in a BBC interview springs to mind) but he says this in a glib fashion that suggests 'well it could be anything.' And so it can run away with you. Pullman obviously wants his message to dominate the reader's attention. This is by no means a bad thing if you agree with him or not. Beginning the book with the 'This person is wrong and everything he says is a lie' stance is not going to give you an enjoyable read in most cases. Yes I am comfortable on this fence. __________________ I think that if you want facts, then The Downer Newspaper is probably the place to go. I know! I read it once. THE PHANTOM AND ALIEN: The Legend of the Golden Bus Ticket...