Pullman rips on LOTR, others

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by davem

Now I'm wondering about Pullman's attitude to relationships - in HDM he has Lyra & Will get together & then immediately splits them up forever, & in an adaptation of one of his Sally Lockhart stories by the BBC over Christmas he has Sally get together with her lover, who immediately afterward gets killed in a fire! Does PP have a problem with his characters being together? Happily ever after doesn't seem to appeal to him...

Could say similar about Tolkien with his profusion of orphans There's quite likely something psychological about why writers choose their characters as they do, but in the case of Lyra and Sally, the loss of a love is simply part of the story. Without saying more about Lyra (spoilers, davem, spoilers! Tch), Sally has to be an unmarried mum as otherwise the plot of the third novel would not work - she is subject to some serious exploitation owing to her vulnerable place in Victorian society. What Pullman doesn't shirk on though is Love - the characters always experience Love, even if it is doomed!

[William Cloud Hicklin]

But even if we take The Shire as Home, which you very interestingly and imaginatively suggest, Tolkien's assumption--or is it yours?-- that Home is always so comfortable is . . . a political statement about that form of domestic organisation. And, if you are going to argue that The Shire is Home, then that tantalizingly suggests the Ring story is almost an allegory about not wanting to grow up, Frodo wanting to save the Shire and all. Was he a kind of Peter Pan, wanting to preserve that comfortable childhood, and when he found he couldn't

No, it's not a political statement: it's an emotional statement. "It was a hobbit-hole, and that means comfort:" you don't have to be a Freudian to see how womby it is. Tolkien was calling up his own nostalgia-gilded memories of the place where he was a little boy, with a mother and everything. Political matters weren't an issue for seven-year-old Ronald; and in the Shire he could sweep them away with a sort of 'if men were angels' sleight of hand: Hobbits apparently don't have or want any kind of government at all (it's not like the Mayor counts for anything). "Growing food and eating it took up most of their time."

But in the end of LR Frodo doesn't compare to Barrie's eternal boy PP at all. "You have grown, Halfling. You are both wise and cruel." Even the other Travellers might see returning as 'going back to sleep'; but Frodo is clearsighted enough to confront the awful reality: his mother has been raped (to push the Freudian thing rather too hard). Childhood always ends, whether you want it to or not.

However-- adults have homes too, you know.

(Incidentally, pre- and early agrarian societies were hardly some nonviolent Rousseauvian golden age of Noble Savages: recent research indicates that in late Paleolithic and Mesolithic societies 40 to 50% of the population died at the hands of their fellow humans. And the Vikings, my God: a sanguinary epoch of murder, outlawry and blood-feud- and that's just among themselves.)

If you have a philosophy/theology that develops a schism between mind and body, between spiritual and material, then it's going to be a problem handling the very material question of procreation

Which isn't remotely Lewis' philosophy/theology. He had no problem at all with the physical and material- a boisterous, active man who relished his pipe, his beer, his dinner and his friends. No aescetic he! What Lewis dstinguished was the important from the unimportant, which is a very different thing. (I should point out also that , based on The Four Loves, Lewis had a perfectly healthy attitude towards eros).

[William Cloud Hicklin]

But the point Lewis makes is odious. There is nothing wrong in women (let's stick to it) being interested in these things, in fact it's perfectly ordinary and always has been - and I find it quite insulting that because I'm overly fond of handbags and enjoy reading about fashion in Grazia, some old professor in his dusty tweed suit thinks I'm at best 'silly' and at worst 'immoral'.

Had Lewis said that Susan had grown interested in little else than jackboots, knives and guns then he may have had a moral point to make, but there is nothing wrong in the harmless pursuit of the trappings of adult womanhood

I rather think you skipped or skimmed Davem's post above: what's wrong with Susan was that fripperies were ALL she cared about. Which rather counters your "harmless pusuit of the trappings of adult womanhood." I'll grant that Lewis slipped into something of the 'typical man' thing: but it wasn't his *point.* Whether it was lipstick or jackboots or stamp collecting, the essential point is that Susan had allowed the unimportant to consume her entire existence.

Certainly Lewis by this time had no problem at all with Joy, who was always nicely turned out- but who was about much, much more than merely the latest issue of Vogue. As are you.

There is a secondary point in there about 'growing up' and its connection to sexual maturity (or at least the perception thereof): but Lewis' point here is that sexual activity and mental/emotional maturity are not remotely the same thing; and while maturity and Narnia apparently cannot coexist, there is nothing mutually exclusive between maturity and the *memory* of Narnia: a fallacy which Susan fell into when she chose to jettison it in favor of the false 'grown-uppishness' of the Spears sisters.

[Child of the 7th Age]

William Cloud Hickli -

There is a much larger problem here that no one seems to be addressing. It is impossible to judge the depiction of Susan without considering the wider issue of how Lewis generally represents women. I enjoy Lewis immensely and have done so since childhood. I have many of his fiction and non-fiction books sitting on my shelf.

However, I love these works in spite of the way Lewis portrays female characters or even discusses women in some of his non-fiction works. (Passages in the Four Loves are also suggestive, but I don't have a copy at home.) I remember being taken aback even as a child when I read the Narnia tales and found out what happened to Susan. Something in my eleven year old head howled "unfair". I was the furthest kid you could imagine from lipstick and party invitations, but I wasn't quite sure that I could measure up to Lucy in spiritual depth and had a bad feeling that otherwise (like Susan) I would be thrown into a literary pit.

I had a similar queasy feeling when I encountered Jane in That Hideous Strength. I don't have a copy handy right now so I would have a hard time coming up with specific quotes, but I always had the feeling that Lewis simply took Ephesians 5: 22-25 concerning the headship of men over women and went at it from that viewpoint, with little subtlety. Others will feel very comfortable with this, but I do not.

It's only when you get to Till We Have Faces that Lewis seems capable of portraying females with some insight and depth. This is one of my favorite books. Orual is a compelling, complex character. There is no simple right or wrong here. We are shown how Orual grows in wisdom, self knowledge, and ability to love. It's my understanding that this was written late in Lewis's career....after he had met and loved Joy. That experience must have transformed him as I see an enormous difference between Orual (and even Psyche) and his earlier females. Lucy is a compelling personality, but there is no depth in her characterization or, in another direction, that of the later Susan. And I say this while acknowledging that there is a difference between writing a story for a juvenile or adult audience. Whatever Tolkien's personal views on the role of women (a subject for debate), I do not see this same simplicity in Tolkien's females that I do in those of Lewis. But Tolkien had the advantage of Edith and Priscilla for many long years.

[Gwathagor]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hickli

I rather think you skipped or skimmed Davem's post above: what's wrong with Susan was that fripperies were ALL she cared about. Which rather counters your "harmless pusuit of the trappings of adult womanhood." I'll grant that Lewis slipped into something of the 'typical man' thing: but it wasn't his *point.* Whether it was lipstick or jackboots or stamp collecting, the essential point is that Susan had allowed the unimportant to consume her entire existence.

Certainly Lewis by this time had no problem at all with Joy, who was always nicely turned out- but who was about much, much more than merely the latest issue of Vogue. As are you.

There is a secondary point in there about 'growing up' and its connection to sexual maturity (or at least the perception thereof): but Lewis' point here is that sexual activity and mental/emotional maturity are not remotely the same thing; and while maturity and Narnia apparently cannot coexist, there is nothing mutually exclusive between maturity and the *memory* of Narnia: a fallacy which Susan fell into when she chose to jettison it in favor of the false 'grown-uppishness' of the Spears sisters.

Well said.

[Morwen]

There is a much larger problem here that no one seems to be addressing. It is impossible to judge the depiction of Susan without considering the wider issue of how Lewis generally represents women. I enjoy Lewis immensely and have done so since childhood. I have many of his fiction and non-fiction books sitting on my shelf.

However, I love these works in spite of the way Lewis portrays female characters or even discusses women in some of his non-fiction works. (Passages in the Four Loves are also suggestive, but I don't have a copy at home.) I remember being taken aback even as a child when I read the Narnia tales and found out what happened to Susan. Something in my eleven year old head howled "unfair". I was the furthest kid you could imagine from lipstick and party invitations, but I wasn't quite sure that I could measure up to Lucy in spiritual depth and had a bad feeling that otherwise (like Susan) I would be thrown into a literary pit.

It is Susan who rejects Narnia. And since she's the one doing the rejecting what exactly is unfair about the situation?

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hickli

I rather think you skipped or skimmed Davem's post above: what's wrong with Susan was that fripperies were ALL she cared about. Which rather counters your "harmless pusuit of the trappings of adult womanhood." I'll grant that Lewis slipped into something of the 'typical man' thing: but it wasn't his *point.* Whether it was lipstick or jackboots or stamp collecting, the essential point is that Susan had allowed the unimportant to consume her entire existence.

Certainly Lewis by this time had no problem at all with Joy, who was always nicely turned out- but who was about much, much more than merely the latest issue of Vogue. As are you.

There is a secondary point in there about 'growing up' and its connection to sexual maturity (or at least the perception thereof): but Lewis' point here is that sexual activity and mental/emotional maturity are not remotely the same thing; and while maturity and Narnia apparently cannot coexist, there is nothing mutually exclusive between maturity and the *memory* of Narnia: a fallacy which Susan fell into when she chose to jettison it in favor of the false 'grown-uppishness' of the Spears sisters.

Lewis makes a judgement which is entirely a value judgement based wholly on his own personal values. There is nothing inherently wrong or immoral with someone who chooses to focus on something which he might view as 'trivial' such as fashion. Why, there will be more than a handful of Downs members who focus their whole lives around Hobbits and Elves, and while it might not be entirely healthy to have a fixation on one thing, it isn't wrong in the slightest.

What's more, Lewis chose to pick on something peculiar to women, particularly to young women. It is in fact healthy for a young woman to have an interest in her social life and how she looks, it is part of her growing up. I think that had Lewis been in a proper relationship earlier he might have accepted such 'fripperies' as part and parcel of life and ignored them.

Child brings up the Four Loves which also contains some objectionable stuff - namely that women and men cannot be friends as they do not share the same types of interests. Well excuse me, but I have always had male friends, one since I was 13. He once said he liked nothing so much as the sound of 'adult male laughter', presumably women's laughter being too shrill and cackling? I believe he also had a pop at women's magazines too, and said some things about how the man should be head of the household (yeah, riiight ) but someone more inclined to delve deep into Lewis will have to clarify, I'm afraid trying to read Narnia left me scarred for life. I might have a poke around at some time if I'm feeling girded...

So, it's not just 'the problem of Susan' that demonstrates he had 'issues', stemming from some dysfunctional (non-) relationships. And I'd be happy to leave it at that, but we keep getting the apologetics for him. A writer I do like and who was a sexist pig was Larkin, but nobody tries to deny that he had sexist (and racist) tendencies - why try to 'cover up' for Lewis? That is the point that sticks the most.

He was also well known around Oxford for being curmudgeonly on some issues, he certainly was not the saintly figure of Shadowlands (that is all the doing of the marvellous Hopkins). His spat with Betjeman and his 'effete' friends is exemplary of the personality of Lewis, and the story of the tea party with Louis MacNeice is hilarious as the young aesthetes forced Lewis (who was all manly and talked of giving people 'a smack') to discuss lace curtains and so forth. This whole hatred thing has amused me for some time - and the great irony is that the parents giving their children the regulation box set of Narnia to read will likely know more than a few Betjeman lines off by heart as he's Britain's best loved 'modern' poet.

Lewis in fact might be wholly improved by acknowledging his darker side and stepping for a moment outside the doors of what Betjeman dubbed "the church of St CS Lewis". I always think it doesn't do us any favours to be instantly dismissive of criticism of Tolkien and it ought to be taken onboard and examined honestly - time to do that with Lewis and it makes no intellectual sense to dismiss someone like Pullman out of hand just for daring to be critical.

[Gwathagor]

I believe, Lalwende and Bethberry, that you are letting your strong dislike of Lewis's curmudgeonly tendencies overwhelm and misdirect your understanding of this particular part of TLB.

The point of the lipstick and invitations bit isn't to condemn the proper use of those things, but rather the deeper problem Susan has, of which the abuse of said items is merely the symptom. This makes a great deal of sense considering the context of the previous books: the apparent childishness of Narnia contrasted with a false, silly grown-upishness. This is a contrast that is made fairly regularly throughout the series (Edmund vs. Pevensies, Peter vs. Lucy in "Prince Caspian", Susan vs. Siblings, etc.)

[davem]

I think this section from the Introduction to Lewis' allegory 'The Great Divorce' sums up where he is coming from with Susan:

I do not think that all who choose wrong roads will perish; but their rescue
consists in being put back on the right road. A wrong sum can be put right: but
only by going back till you find the error and working it afresh from that point,
never by simply going on. Evil can be undone, but it cannot “develop” into good.
Time does not heal it. The spell must be unwound, bit by bit, “with backward
mutters of dissevering power” – or else not. It is still “either-or.” If we insist on
keeping Hell (or even earth) we shall not see Heaven: if we accept Heaven we
shall not be able to retain even the smallest and most intimate souvenirs of Hell. I
believe, to be sure, that any [person] who reaches Heaven will find out what he
abandoned (even plucking out his right eye) was precisely nothing; that the
kernel of wheat he was really seeking even in his most depraved wishes will be
there, beyond expectation, waiting for him in “the High Countries.”

Now, you may agree or disagree with that, but that's what Lewis believed & I think, as a consequence one can see Susan's (temporary?) fate as inevitable. Susan's fate was a direct consequence of Lewis' worldview.

For myself, I find most of Lewis stuff unreadable - though there are some jewels scattered throughout.....

[William Cloud Hicklin]

The traditional view of Vikings has recently come in for some rethinking, particularly as that notion of them comes down to us from those who fought with them. Rome, after all, had a vested interest in explaining just how and why she was conquered.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. First off, Rome (in the West) was centuries gone by the time of the first Vikings (traditionally Lindisfarne, 793)

In the second place, the portrait I referred to was the Norsemen's *own*, drawn from their quasi-historical sagas, and from Heimskringla. They were barely-concealed *proud* of their killers, even when they couldn't pay their weregeld and had to be outlawed. Reading what the Vikings wrote about *themselves* and their interpersonal relationships puts me in mind of nobody so much as LA street gangs: "show me respect or I'll put an axe in yo' ***."

This is not to say that the Vikings did not have admirable qualities: at least those qualities valued in a warrior culture- honor, loyalty, courage, generosity. But it was, unapologetically, a warrior culture, which regarded rapine, pillage, plunder and bloodshed as praiseworthy things and the true measure of a man.

Mind you, I *like* the Vikings. But while we can admire their seacraft and artwork and many other things, we shouldn't forget that that most ancient of parliaments, the Althing, was followed by the 'weapontake:' the men taking up their arms again after they left the assembly. And it's hardly a puzzle why no weapons were allowed inside......

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Gwathagor

I believe, Lalwende and Bethberry, that you are letting your strong dislike of Lewis's curmudgeonly tendencies overwhelm and misdirect your understanding of this particular part of TLB.

The point of the lipstick and invitations bit isn't to condemn the proper use of those things, but rather the deeper problem Susan has, of which the abuse of said items is merely the symptom. This makes a great deal of sense considering the context of the previous books: the apparent childishness of Narnia contrasted with a false, silly grown-upishness. This is a contrast that is made fairly regularly throughout the series (Edmund vs. Pevensies, Peter vs. Lucy in "Prince Caspian", Susan vs. Siblings, etc.)

One of the problems is that items such lipstick and stockings are heavily symbolic of adult female sexuality (along with high heels, glossy hair etc) and what Lewis is saying is that an interest in her own sexuality is "silly". That's both unhealthy and wrong. There is sometimes a tendency of fathers to fail to come to terms with their own daughters' growing up by preventing them (or attempting to prevent them, as they don't know what the girl is sneaking out in her school bag ) from doing such things as experimenting with make-up and clothes, in an unconscious attempt to keep them in childhood. And you do get adult men who have issues with their own partners/wives getting dressed up as they find it threatening - this even appears in entire cultures where women are expected to wear veils and so on. In our own western culture you can find this in the fashion industry where frailty and the look of adolescence is preferred over the look of a real, healthy, full grown woman. It is all to do with power; if women are kept in a state of childhood they pose no threat both in terms of their own potential power or the power other men could gain by 'stealing' them.

So there is very clearly a message about men's power over women in what Lewis says. The boys are allowed to grow and do 'manly' things, but are the girls allowed to grow and do 'womanly' things?

There's your Women's Studies lecture for the day

And all this business Lewis says about how grown ups cannot accept fantasy is nonsense. It is vital that people grow up, lest they become like Michael Jackson! Thank goodness Joy came along and shook Lewis out of his closeted little males only world!

[Gwathagor]

Like I said.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Gwathagor

I believe, Lalwende and Bethberry, that you are letting your strong dislike of Lewis's curmudgeonly tendencies overwhelm and misdirect your understanding of this particular part of TLB.

The point of the lipstick and invitations bit isn't to condemn the proper use of those things, but rather the deeper problem Susan has, of which the abuse of said items is merely the symptom. This makes a great deal of sense considering the context of the previous books: the apparent childishness of Narnia contrasted with a false, silly grown-upishness. This is a contrast that is made fairly regularly throughout the series (Edmund vs. Pevensies, Peter vs. Lucy in "Prince Caspian", Susan vs. Siblings, etc.)

Speaking for myself, I don't think the difficulty lies in my 'strong dislike . . . which misdirects [my] understanding of TLB."

The difficulty lies in how very, very far Lewis falls from the concept and understanding of spirituality which can be found in other writers and other people of more enlarged grace, hope, and charity.

[Gwathagor]

You won't find very many authors with more charity and compassion than Lewis.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hickli

No, it's not a political statement: it's an emotional statement. "It was a hobbit-hole, and that means comfort:" you don't have to be a Freudian to see how womby it is. Tolkien was calling up his own nostalgia-gilded memories of the place where he was a little boy, with a mother and everything. Political matters weren't an issue for seven-year-old Ronald; and in the Shire he could sweep them away with a sort of 'if men were angels' sleight of hand.

Yes, this is precisely my point. Tolkien's Shire is gilded with nostalgia, in contrast to some very non-nostalgic Victorian views of womby things. Pullman's Dust falls over all, but it doesn't gild things. His fantasy is all the more intriguing because it isn't rosy.

(Incidentally, pre- and early agrarian societies were hardly some nonviolent Rousseauvian golden age of Noble Savages: recent research indicates that in late Paleolithic and Mesolithic societies 40 to 50% of the population died at the hands of their fellow humans. And the Vikings, my God: a sanguinary epoch of murder, outlawry and blood-feud- and that's just among themselves.)

Again, you are mischaracterising my comments, this time as Rousseauvian rather than Marxist. Careful now. The traditional view of Vikings has recently come in for some rethinking, particularly as that notion of them comes down to us from those who fought with them. Rome, after all, had a vested interest in explaining just how and why she was conquered.

Which isn't remotely Lewis' philosophy/theology. He had no problem at all with the physical and material- a boisterous, active man who relished his pipe, his beer, his dinner and his friends. No aescetic he! What Lewis dstinguished was the important from the unimportant, which is a very different thing. (I should point out also that , based on The Four Loves, Lewis had a perfectly healthy attitude towards eros).

So Lewis can have his pipe, his beer, his dinner and his friends, but Susan may not because he determined that she was placing too great a value on her friends, her parties, her salon. Role playing kings and queens in Narnia might not have been all that different from role playing drama queen wannabe--in fact, it might have 'preconditioned' Susan to enjoying stylish things and powerful people.

Thank you, Child, for mentioning Till We have Faces. It's a hard book to find (I'm always too lazy to special order) but I'll keep looking for it.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Does PP have a problem with his characters being together? Happily ever after doesn't seem to appeal to him...

Tell that part about "happily ever after" to Frodo! The poor hobbit doesn't even have the memory of such a relationship, unless we are to believe the many trash fanfictions that exist on the internet. Surely we can't condemn Pullman for his inability to supply a wholly happy ending given the concluding chapter of LotR. There is a "sacrifice" made in both books.

Like Lalwende, I have considerable admiration for Pullman's books, despite the fact that the author's world view is leagues from my own. I gobbled up each of the hardcovers when they first came out (still have the first printings with a signed bookplate tipped in.) Pullman is not on the same level as Tolkien, but I do see his work and that of Lewis as similar in many respects, and I enjoy both HDM and Narnia. (If I only enjoyed books that closely mirrored my own world view, I would probably only have a total of two or three to read!) However, I could do without Pullman's bombastic manner in interviews. He certainly does not have the public grace that Tolkien had.

The movie Golden Compass was a real disappointment. I don't expect to see later installments. But then the same thing happened with Tolkien. The earliest film adaptations were very flawed, and we had to wait a long time to see something better. OK, so maybe that latter statement is debatable! But the basic idea is that there's no sense judging a book on a film adaptation. Someday, somewhere, some filmaker will try again with Pullman, if the books continue to appeal to readers, and I believe they will.