[Lalwendë]

I think that this essay by Pullman on Lewis puts paid to any idea that journalists are simply trying to 'bait' Pullman into making controversial statements about other writers, as this is his own willingly given opinion.

EDIT: I've just read through this transcript of a radio programme about the nature of fantasy which features Pullman and includes a lot about Tolkien. In the article, Pullman makes the comment:

Well the aim was always to tell the story. But you don't set out to preach, you don't set out to persuade or to give a lecture or to teach, heaven forbid, don't set out to teach. You just set out to entertain, to tell a story.

Which seems very contradictory to the times when he has criticised Tolkien for being mere entertainment. Isn't he saying the same of his own work here? Refuting the claim that he set out to put a message on the page?

Bear in mind that this programme seems to have had a lot of Tolkien fans on the panel, and it may have scared him a bit. I'm also not sure of the unbiased nature of it as it is a religious programme of some sort.

EDIT AGAIN
And another interesting snippet (hey, I ought to be making the tea, but I'm on a roll here ).

Scroll down this web chat and you'll see where Pullman himself joins in and he makes the following fascinating comment:

Fantasy and non-fantasy. Interesting! For better or worse, I've discovered, I am a fantasist. I resisted it for years, feeling that realism was a higher form, or nobler, or something. And I still enjoy reading realism much more than fantasy - most fantasy I've read is thin - I mean psychologically thin - unsatisfying. But my imagination catches fire with fantasy, and it burns fitfully and damply and with a lot of smoke and needs constant attention and fuss when I do realism. I guess I'm stuck with it. I do regret it, but it's like discovering that your daemon has turned out to be a dog and you always wanted a cat: you have to make the best of it. Whether I like it or not, I am a fantasist.

"Tell them stories ..." That was one of things I enjoyed most. When Mary sees the ghost of the old woman, the ghost says "Tell them stories," meaning of course that new ghosts have to tell the harpies their stories - true stories - in exchange for their passage back to the world. (True stories, because this is what I mean by the difference between "thin" fantasy and "rich" realism - Lyra's first, made-up story, which satisfied the people in the suburbs of the dead but which the harpies rejected brutally - whereas they listened avidly to her true story about the Oxford claybeds). The old woman's ghost says something like "Tell them true stories, and all will be well."

OK, this has got me thinking. Perhaps Pullman actually doesn't have a firm idea that he wants to get across, and this is why some of the things he says come across as contradictory and it could be why the end of HDM seems to fall apart; he has not settled what he really thinks, and so the messages are confused? Certainly Tolkien himself could be a bit like this - when we think about his work in a political context, and especially in his confusion over the symbolism of Galadriel and any religious meaning as time went by.

Some of what he says rings a bell with me. I also resist 'fantasy' as a lot of it is indeed 'thin', and yet it can be addictive. I know I'm not going to be successful, but I spend a lot of time searching out great fantasy; I'm 90% of the time disappointed. Loads of it is indeed like reading about "Krell The Cliche King from the Doom-mountains of Tharg". Hmm. But Tolkien's not like that! He is the original and his work is deep and poetic. I know that Pullman did not read Tolkien until well into adulthood, does this have a bearing on it? If you had read some vile fantasy works and then went to Tolkien you might just sigh and go "Oh God, not more ruddy Elves". I don't know. I'm sure someone here will be able to share what they felt?

Anyway, it looks as though Pullman here grudgingly (sheepishly?) admits that yes, he does like fantasy, even though much of it isn't much cop. Perhaps its that this is a different audience again to the reactionary, armchair iconoclasts and Islington types who devour the Observer on a Sunday and expect holy cows to be destroyed before their eyes?

And back to Tolkien. Its interesting his point about stories and about them being real, as I always get the sense that Tolkien's stories and characters are thoroughly real. How similar are tales of Aragorn/Arwen and Beren/Luthien to Tolkien's own experience of being separated from Edith? Sam as being like the ordinary but strong men he met in the Somme? Gollum is a mentally tormented human? Frodo's pain is like the pain of shellshock and PTSD? Eowyn's desperation to fight is like the desperation to fight of the 15 year old boys who lied in order to go to the battlefields of France? Tolkien's work is full of true stories.