Quote:
|
Originally Posted by HerenIstarion
No, I don't think it is that delibarate or conscious.
[I believe] 'Tolkien vs Shakespeare' is not that much open dislike but rather a regret - 'The Great who surely could, and could well, [deliberately] did not' kind of feeling
[I believe] Pullman vs Tolkien is 'play for audience' for sure, but more than this it is rather utter opposition of worldviews. 'There are enemies, and this is the greatest. Let us beat him on his own ground' kind of feeling
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lal
The other amusing point is that Pullman in the Isis lecture calls for more story telling in the classroom, for more narrative. He also calls for more narrative in Tevildo's article, and bemoans modern literary experimentation. Yet this is what he does not like about Tolkien.
I find it frustrating really. From what he says, he ought to love Tolkien, but he
|
The more I look back at HDM, the more I become very curious about Pullman's attitude towards Tolkien's brand of fantasy.
HI, I think you are on to something in the way Tolkien regards Shakespeare. He does admire the man's writing and talent. Otherwise, why would he bother going to see performances? Yet what I think is significant is how Tolkien's view of elves and other creatures of fairy differed substantially from Shakespeare's. It is possible that these depictions grated enough on Tolkien to cause him to reuminate upon the way to represent fairy. In that sense, Tolkien stood on Shakespeare's shoulder to see farther. You are right that this differs in quality from Pullman. I rather think that Tolkien still had very much the old gracious politeness about him, a sense of courtesy and fair play, the social civility which our age lacks to a very great extent.
Difference of world view. Admittedly, Pullman is a declared atheist, but many Christians have come to the defense of HDM as an attack not on true faith but on the wretched consequence of dogma and religious oppression, the misuse of church power and authority. As far as I can recall from HDM, it is the wrongful use of authority which draws Pullman's great ire. Yes, he eradicates this woeful and oppressive figure The Authority, but what does it mean if we interpret this figure as God?If we say that Pullman is attacking Christianity, does that mean we accept as right and true the depiction of the Church and The authority? In some measure I think Pullman's attitude towards authority, while differing from Tolkien's, might not be radically opposite.
As for Pullman not loving Tolkien, I took a look at the final chapter of volume three last night. It ends in the Botanic Garden in Lyra's Oxford, which of course is not "our" Oxford. Yet Lyra's daemon runs up his favourite tree, a large old pine. Now that I've visited the Botanic Garden in Oxford, I know this tree, as it was Tolkien's favourite tree also and the last known photograph we have of him shows him standing beside it and touching it. I cannot help but think that Pullman knows of this. Why do this? Why the pine and not any of the several other trees in the Botanic Garden? Also, on his third planet there are trees that are silver and gold. I'm sure that if one went through HDM one could find some very fascinating perspectives of Tolkien's work, worked into Pullman's.
Yet Pullman bemoans Tolkien. Why? When I look closely at Pullman's writing, I see a great many metaphors and comparisons and references to the natural world, the natural world which science has made known to us. He talks about cell growth, he talks about nuclear engergy, he talks about many kinds of scientific knowledge. Is it that Tolkien's fantasy does not partake of this materialism which draws his ire?
Pullman certainly has a particular respect for Imagination, but perhaps it is a different imagination than that of Tokien's? To say that their differences relate to Pullmann's atheism might be barking up the wrong tree. That is incidental to the more profound difference, a difference between views of what fantasy and imagination are.
I'm not sure how valid this, but I thought I would throw it out for discussion.