Quote:
|
Originally Posted by davem
If you click the link in my sig you'll be able to read a lecture by Pullman, not simply quotes taken out of context.
|
Thank you for that. I had overlooked it, although I had seen the excerpts on this thread referring to LotR.
I see nothing there to suggest that Pullman is ignorant. Indeed, I found that lecture and the interviews posted by Tevildo and Squatter earlier to be to be highly absorbing and I found myself agreeing with him on many points. I actually get the impression of a highly intelligent, thoughtful and reflective man, albeit one who is forthright in his views and who can clearly be provocative at times (reminds me of a certain Barrow-Downer ...
). Some of the language he uses in connection with LotR is, admittedly, slightly perjorative, but I see nothing to warrant the categorisation of his approach as insulting. As far as I can see, he makes no personal attack on Tolkien. He is merely setting out his opinion of Tolkien's published work (which is fair game) in order to explain why he wanted to achieve something different. As far as Lewis is concerned, he states that he has great respect for the man personally, but finds his Narnia tales grotesque. Fair enough. I have not read them myself, but I can understand the point that he is making.
The article linked to in Tevildo's post is actually vaguley complimentary of LotR, since he refers to the numerous Tolkien imitators as "sub-Tolkiens" (suggesting that he rates Tolkien more highly than those who have attempted to repeat his style) and to LotR as the "Everest" of the fantasy genre. Not only because it is unavoidable (being a bloomin' great mountain) but also because (as this suggests he recognises) it towers above much of the rest of the genre.
And it is in this analogy, and upon re-reading the thread, where I see why I am uncomfortable with some of what has been said here. There seems to be a general assumption that Pullman delights in criticising Tolkien, that he goes out of his way to do so, and that he actively seeks to discourage people from reading Tolkien's works. I don't see that to be the case at all. Inevitably, Tolkien's works come up in most interviews that he gives (courtesy of the journalists concerned). He cannot avoid addressing this Everest of the fantasy landscape. LotR did not appeal to him, and so he would be dishonest were he to pretend otherwise and neglectful were he not to seek to explain why it did not appeal to him. Moreover, in the lecture referenced in davem's signature (which concerns fantasy literature and so inevitably raises the spectre of Everest once more), he uses LotR to explain why he wanted to approach his own fantasy writing (to which he was compelled by his imagination) differently. I don't agree with his categorisation of LotR as "thin" and "trivial" (as my own opinion of it differs from his), but I can understand the point that he is making, given his own reaction to the book.
Is he insulting because he expresses his opinion of LotR when the circumstances require it? No, I don't think so. Is he ignorant because he found little in LotR that appealed to him? Categorically not.