[Bêthberry]

Thank-you, Child, for posting that other Christian witness to Pullman's trilogy. I was indeed hoping to suggest that many interpretations and experiences are possible and, of course, all equally valid for the reader.

I am also heartened by your statement that you do feel Pullman's world does incorporate enchantment. Indeed, I was very uneasy with davem's initial statement that Pullman's books cannot be fantasy as Tolkien defines it because they are atheistic. That, to my mind, defines literary genres by ideology, something which leads inherently I think to a grave limitation of what can legitimately be called literature.

What strikes me most strongly is the way Pullman, even in a 'fantasy' story, cannot let go of his athiesm. He's basically undermining fairy story, by deliberately denying any possibility of eucatastrophe. He eventually cuts this world off from magic, & from any possibility of 'liberation'. So, he strands us, here, in this one world, this one life. And all we have to look forward to is cessation.

Tolkien seems to be offering the exact opposite.

So, can we class both writer's works as 'fantasy' - HDM is not 'fantasy' in the sense in which Tolkien uses the term, because Eucatastrophe is completely absent. Indeed, Pullman seems to have created a story in which eucatastrophe is impossible.

I think we need to be very careful using words such as eucatastrophe and magic. For instance, Tolkien gives very specific and special meaning to his use of 'magic', suggesting that it is not a slight of hand or optical illusion which defies the physical properties of ths earth but rather a particular kind of artistic unity or vision where intention and completion are united. It is art. "the magic, or rather art," Tolkien says in OFs.

In this sense, Pullman's His Dark Materials are full of artistic wonder and breathtaking feats of writing for me. His concept of dæmon pulls at my heart and mind every time I read the books, particularly in the uniqueness of each person's dæmon and in the special relationship with an animal which is at its heart--something Tolkien also discusses in OFS. The gyptians and their boats and the marshlands of the lower Thames and Lyra's escape are quintessentially elements of fantasy for me, as is the description of her childhood at Jordan. The bears? The confederacy of the witches? The Angels? Mary Malone? Mary's life speaks so poignantly to me of hope and the great possibilities of love which human beings are capable of. And I could go on naming so many other elements of His Dark Materials which strike me as high points of articistic creation, the very spell of which Tolkien speaks.

However, I suspect that for you Tolkien's definition of magic and eucatastrophe are inescapably religious. That you view them in this manner is, of course, your right as a reader. ( Nor are these two facets of fantasy the sole elements which Tolkien discusses.) However, I would like to focus on eucatastrophe alone for now and respectfully point out that Tolkien's definition is not primarily religious. Here I will go back to my earlier post and explain it more lucidly I hope.

Tolkien introduces the word "eucatastrophe" in the section entitled "Recovery, Escape, Consolation." (He says that eucatastrophe is the highest function of fantasy, but not the sole one. ) And he also defines it as the unexpected consolation of the Happy Ending. He uses the words Joy and Evangelium but the main focus of his argument lies in examining the effect of this unexpected turn of events.

It is only in the Epilogue that Tolkien brings in what for him was "the greatest and most complete conceivable eucastrophe," the story of Christ. He does not define the Christian witness or truth as the function of fantasy. He argues it the other way around. He establishes first his definition and understanding of how fantasy satisfies human desires, and in particular this unexpected consolation, and then he offers what for him is the most complete form of the artistic effect. I would venture to say that Tolkien remained a Christian, a Catholic, because for him its very heart reflected the fundamental truth of art for him.
A letter which Tolkien never sent seems to me to confirm this idea that for him fantasy was an artistic or literary effect primarily (and that it could be used for ill or good).

I refer to the draft of Letter 153, to Peter Hastings. Hastings, a Catholic, had apparently written to Tolkien to question metaphysical matters in LotR. Tolkien several times observes that Hastings takes Tolkien too seriously , and, indeed, Carpenter provides a note which explains why Tolkien never sent the draft: "It seemed to be taking myself too seriously." I offer two passages from the letter to suggest Tolkien's desire that his writing be viewed as art.

I am taking myself even more seriously than you did, and making a great song and oration about a good tale, which admittedly owes its similitude to mere craft.

and

The tale is after all in the ultimate analysis a tale, a piece of literature, intended to have a literary effect, and not realy history.

It is here, I would suggest, that we can find explanation why people of so many different persuasions and faiths can find such great enjoyment in Tolkien. A truth of art, which for him his faith also mirrored, but an aesthetic experience first and foremost.

I write in haste and am called away. My apologies for the many infelicities of expression.