[NancyBrooke]

My mom showed me this article in the New Yorker: http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/051226fa_fact. It is an interview with Phillip Pullman, author of the "His Dark Materials" trilogy (with which I am otherwise not familiar). In it Pullman has some very interesting, and not flattering, things to say about Tolkien and C. S. Lewis. What do you think?

[Sulriel]

I think he's a troll.

no story is going to be to everyone's taste, but if someone doesn't at least appreciate what went into Tolkien's works, it says to me that they haven't explored it or don't understand it.

(I'm not saying you have to *like* it, I'm saying that any reasonable exploration should see the incredible depth and layers of what Tolkien did)

The difference, I think, is that most authors spend a year or five years on a book, - maybe more on a series. - Tolkien wrote LotR, the Silm, and all bits of HoMe over his LIFETIME.

I think the reality of how deeply so many people are keyed in a connect with Tolkien's work is well-stated in it's enduring popularity.

[ellisk]

I read yesterday while browsing the Internet that one of the most difficult aspects of successful book publishing is publicity. In my opinion, this author is attempting to solve the problem of creating publicity for his works by making outrageous statements in order to get press.

He is quoted in the article as saying, "I don’t think it’s possible that there is a God; I have the greatest difficulty in understanding what is meant by the words ‘spiritual’ or ‘spirituality’; but I think I can say something about moral education, and I think it has something to do with the way we understand stories."

and then he goes on to say the Narnia series is morally loathesome? That certainly seems odd. And as someone who taught literature for a very long time, while I do think that some aspects of the writing in LotR is somewhat simplistic, it is clear that the world Tolkien created is far from infantile. I certainly would love to hear his reasoning for saying that Tolkien was not interested in relationships between adults because that claim is lost on me.

I really think this fellow is trying to generate publicity for his own works by throwing around some currently popular names in an outrageous manner. Hope it works for him...

Interesting article, though NB.

[NancyBrooke]

Ellisk, we may have to mark the calendar - this may be one of the few times we disagree ! Mr. Pullman's statements did not read to me as outrageousness for the sake of attention or attention to his books - they were published some time ago and have already received notoriety and awards.

But, whatever, I found Mr. Pullman fascinating and, on many points, pleasantly provocative if not convincing.

Much of his reasoning about the Narnia series seems to stem from the fate of Susan Pevensie, which I don't remember and would now like to reread. But if indeed she is barred from paradise because of her sexual maturing I find that highly suspect and troubling.

Similarly, I found Pullman's comments about Tolkien not incorrect. I have always found the Trilogy gripping as an adventure tale, and engrossing as a illustration of the extraordinarily complete world Tolkien created, but as a illustration/exploration of human relationships it leaves a great deal to be desired. I think Tolkien left a lot off the page. Denethor's obsessive love for his sons is evident from his actions and his declarations, but I remember few (if any) other examples of the characters' emotional life.

That's part of why I found the films so compelling - finally we got to see and hear how the characters felt, rather than have to extrapolate it.

Perhaps that's part of why we all find Middle Earth such fertile ground for fiction - there's so much left unsaid.

That being said, Mr. Pullman's comments certainly haven't changed my feelings about either author's work, just broadened my own thinking about them.

[ellisk]

[LydiaB]

[ghettoelleth]

How A/U can we get here? I'm in 100% agreement with Nancy on most of this. I do have to say, however, that I feel Pullman's assessment of Tolkien on a certain level is accurate in that Tolkien is less concerned with the way people interact with one another, otherwise, why would we feel so compelled to write the fiction that we do. I know in many instances it is precisely because of this that I feel a need to know more, invent more, see someone else's take on this. Although, I do feel that, rather than a lack of concern, it may have been more of a lack of time, space, paper in the world. Had Tolkien elaborated on all of the relationships in the Silmarillion, he never would have had a free moment.

That said, Pullman's fiction is hardly for everyone. One of the reasons that there has been such a stall in getting his films to the big screen is that he pulls no punches. Pullman is a blatant Humanist and often called a modern day Milton. If you know anything of Milton, you know how controversial he was in his day and the fact that Pullman, in the same vein, constantly questions the very nature of God makes it difficult to translate his work into the generic good vs evil that Hollywood was able to accomplish with Tolkien and Lewis. Another aspect that comes through strongly, especially in the last book, is that Pullman's work is a powerful indictment of organized religion. That's a bit heavy for a children's movie and in reality, Pullman's books are not for the Narnia/Hobbit faction but more for teens and young adults. Finally, and most oddly of all, it is clearly stated that the "Power" referred to in the trilogy and called, "The Authority", blatant refers to God, THE God, the one in the bible. Here's a snippet from the third book, 'The Amber Spyglass':

[LydiaB]

[Haleth]

I don't doubt Mr. Pullman's passion for his beliefs, however the manner in which he expresses his opinion carries the distinct flavour of sour grapes.

I am quite willing to wait 50 years to see if his books have the staying power of Tolkien and Lewis's works.

Somehow, I doubt it.

[ghettoelleth]

Hehe, dayum Haleth...



Lydia, My daughter reads at a very advanced level, if she were not so precocious, I probably would let her read them with the assumption that she would be taking them at face value rather than looking into the deeper implications of God as overbearing despot. But this is the child who got upset with the filmakers of Troy for color coding the armor, asking if they thought people were so stupid that they had to put the soldiers in garanimals armor for us to get who was who...

[Alassante]

[NancyBrooke]

[ghettoelleth]

[telcontarr]

Well, I wouldn't have thought that of Pullman, because I do like his books a lot but..
In this matter I think Pullman didn't quite understand the meaning of the works of Tolkien and Lewis.
T.&L. did not want to write some nice stories that teach the reader moral, or manners, or how to interact with people.
They wanted to create a fictional, mythical world of their own.
Nevertheless, I do not think lotr or con is in any way racist- there are different races, yes, but each of them has its own qualities and no race is considered better than another.
Apart from that, Pullman speaks badly of what he does not understand- what should be negative about Tolkiens interest on languages and maps? Indeed, his knowledge makes his books the more exciting and interesting to read, while I noticed that the maps or the language used in Pullmans trilogy is not nearly as good as that Tolkien uses!
Pullman has never read, or if he read it, has never understood the meaning of the Lord of the Rings or he would not say such things about it!!!