[davem]

The Pullman interview was on Radio, so I can't give a refference - It was conducted by Germaine Greer, so maybe Pullman was intimidated! He has repeated the statement about wanting to write 'serious' novels in other places though - in an interview for another radio programme by Brian Sibley - 'Fired by the Ring'. He does seem to see fantasy as 'escapist', but not in the positive sense used by Tolkien. He seems to think of fantasy as running away from 'reality', or at least as at best a way to focus people back on the 'real' world.

Quote:'We can listen to statements of an author's intention but when all is said and done a book, like a child, must make sense and meaning without parental control. As, in fact, your gloss on Pullman reflects your feeling that he betrays fantasy. That is an interpretation, your interpretation, but it is not the only interpretation.'

This is the core of this thread, I think - has Pullman any intention in his writing - is he trying to 'teach' us anything? I think he would say he is, & I don't think he would have written what he has if he didn't feel that he had something to say that we needed to hear. The difference between him & Tolkien is simply that he is around to argue his case.

Quote: 'The Amber Spyglass ends with Lyra telling her daemon they must build "The Reublic of Heaven." This is not a denial of fantasy, but a suggestion that the responsibility for continuing the vision it offers us lies with us, a challenge to see this world newly under what we have learnt from faerie. Pullman's trilogy goes on as much as Tolkien's does.'

'The Republic of Heaven' is ultimately a meaningless concept. The whole work is about an attempt at liberation from the 'supernatural' dimension, about cutting us off from it, & from metaphysical 'fantasies', yet 'Heaven' is a metaphysical concept - how can one 'build' a metaphysical 'reality'? A 'Republic of Heaven' sounds clever, but means nothing. Pullman simply replaces God with humanity - & as Chesterton said - 'When people cease believing in God, they don't believe in nothing, they believe in anything. Pullman's republic of Heaven is bound to descend into some form of fundamentalism, as everyone will be out to construct, to impose, their own concept of 'Heaven' - Paradise as a product of democracy - satisfying no-one, because designed by the whim of the electorate. How could it be anything else - there is no metaphysical dimension, no chance for 'Light' to break in, because the rules of Pullman's world demand that all new roads & secret gates are irretrievably shut, on pain of Death.

Quote: ' As for your statement of alleged cruelty thatf the lovers are separated, I think not. I would point to Eowyn's first love for Aragorn and Tolkien's recognition that not all first loves are like the mythic love of Aragorn and Arwen. In this "shipwreck of life"--to use Tolkien's phrase--there are many different kinds of love and not all need lead to domesticity and plighting of eternal troth. There is narrative wholeness and profound respect for the characters, for fantasy and for human existence. It is, for me, hopeful.

I think the point as far as Eowyn's love for Aragorn goes, is that, as Tolkien shows, it is not 'true' love - Eowyn loves 'a shadow & a thought'. Will & Lyra are suppposed to be the new Adam & Eve, symbolic as much as real, & Pullman even denies the possibility of their being together after death - eternal seperation of the lovers - except in the form of their physical atoms coming together after their bodies have broken down. What 'respect' does this show - for the characters themselves, or for love itself. The whole message, especially compared to Tolkien's story of Aragorn & Arwen, where even death itself is a price worth paying for love, is pathetic & nasty & incredibly cruel. How much hope (estel) is inspired by Pullman's ending - love is hopeless, & death ends it all. But how can there be any hope beyond the circles of the World in Pullman's vision? He has spent 1300 pages telling us that going beyond this world is dangerous, ultimately fatal, for all of us, even the universe itself, so, we must stay here till we die, & that's it - & if we read anything else into his story, hope that in some way Will & Lyra will find each other again someday, that's 'uncanonical'. And these are 'children's ' books - (which despite Pullman's claims after the event, they were written to be) - so what message is Pullman sending out. Actually, I'd say they are childish books - they revel in the childish notion that all authority is bad, & has to be gotten rid of, & that really children know best.

Quote: Writers are a bothersome lot oftentimes. Give them a genre or form and they will immediately begin to see ways to expand upon it, redefine it, to extend it, to reimagine it. That's what Tolkien did with the old northern narratives, to give them form and meaning for the Seventh Age. And that is what Pullman is doing. Faerie, the perilous realm, is endless. Some of us take strength from it, are invigorated by it, and, like Sam and Rosie, use that strength to rebuild this world. Others, like Frodo, find it leads elsewhere. No path is necessarily better or worse and no one path suffices for us all.

But some paths are better - the road to Heaven is better than the road to Hell - Pullman simply denies the metaphysical existence of either, in order to make it seem like niether road exists, & that whatever road we take will lead us to whatever place we want to be - we can build a Republic of Hell more easily (& we're more likely to, given our history & natural proclivities) than a Republic of Heaven. Of course, we all take different paths, but the question is where the paths lead, & they don't all automatically lead to the same place - much though Pullman might wish it.

Tolkien offers us destinations, & says that while we may follow different paths to get to them, there are choices to be made, because Heaven is in a specific place & Hell is too, & those places exist - we don't have to build them when we get there.