Quote:
|
Originally Posted by davem
Their comments not only attempt to invalidate his work, but to invalidate his life & experiences as well. In short, what both are saying is that he should have shut the hell up, that if his life & his experiences meant he could only write what he did, he shouldn't have written anything at all.
|
No they are not. They are merely expressing their opinion. As have you, concerning Pullman's works.
I am not surprised that these fantasy authors have expressed their opinion on Tolkien, given his standing within the genre. Particularly so in Pullman's case, given that it seems to be the frst question that journalists ask him (and as Bb, I think, points out, journalistic reporting of his response may not be the most reliable source of his views). They are entitled to express their opinion and to provide justification for that opinion, particularly when asked, and they are fully entitled to dislike Tolkien's works. Surprisingly (
), it's not illegal to do so. I know many people to whom they do not appeal at all.
While I admire the works of both Pullman and (particularly) Moorcock myself, I do nevertheless find myself slightly at odds with their arguments, as expressed here. They both appear to take the approach that there is a particular way to write a fantasy/SF novel, namely the approach that each of them adopts. That assumes that all readers are looking (or
should be looking) for the same thing in a novel, a stance with which I fundamentally disagree. It would be a dull world indeed if we were all to share the same tastes. It is difficult, I think, to make a qualitative assessment of differing authorial styles in a world where even the poorest writers (poorest, that is, in my opinion) can garner mass appeal.
Moorcock's arguments are to my mind the most compelling, being the more developed. I partly agree with him with regard to Tolkien's literary style, from a "technical literary" perspective. But, then again, technical expertise in the literary field is not always sufficent (or even necessary) to win the hearts and minds of readers, or indeed (as I have said) to garner mass appeal. I also partly agree with Moorcock's view on why tales such as LotR are so popular, but perhaps that is because I lean rather towards some of the characteritics that he defines in a Tolkien (and Pooh) reader, and unashamedly so.
Pullman's argument, in my view, is less convincing, although that is perhaps because we only have it secondhand. On that basis, what he fails to appreciate, I think, is that readers can enjoy his works purely as entertaining reads without feeling the need to identify, much less identify with, his "message", while other readers can find much meaning in Tolkien's works. On that level, his works are no different from those produced by Tolkien. It all comes down, again, to what appeals to the individual reader. (Do I hear echoes of the dreaded C-thread
.)
My enjoyment of Pullman's trilogy primarily derives from my reaction to them as entertaining reads, and for many years I approached LotR on the same basis. I can discuss messages, authorial intent and the like. I think that both can provoke serious thought on the human condition. But I prefer to read them as enjoyable tales. As it happens, on an intellectual level, I find Pullman's view of human nature and good/evil the more acceptable, far morseo than Tolkien, whereas it is Tolkien who touches me at a deeper, more instinctive, level.
I have no issue with the basic premise behind the struggle depicted in Pullman's trilogy. Where, however, I do find him open to criticism, is in his attempt to portray this struggle as an all-encompassing one spanning the entire universe across multiple dimensions. It seems to me that he over-reaches himself and so loses credibility. My complaint about the latter parts of his trilogy, therefore, is more a technical one than a philosophical one. Tolkien, on the other hand, developed only one world, and concentrated in detail only on certain parts of it, both temporally and geographically. His works, therefore, come across to me as far more convincing (and thus engaging).
Overall, however, I find it refreshing occasionally to hear the views of those who do not regard Tolkien as the best thing since sliced bread, and I think it entirely proper (and indeed healthy) that those views be expressed, particularly when they are expressed intelligently and coherently (whether we agree with them or not), and especially on a Tolkien board such as this one.