As most of you can suspect from reading my posts on this thread, I am fascinated by the virulence of Pullman's attitude towards Tolkien, particularly since many of the journalists who interview him report qualities and traits to which Tolkien would not be adverse. And I am equally fascinated by the links
davem provided which suggest that the central facet of the difference lies in differing perspectives of the nature of fantasy.
How very fitting for a solidly materialistic attitude towards realism for Pullman to have his story begin with Lyra discovering that, while her wardrobe
is bigger than she first thought, it has but one way of exit, while for Lewis' Lucy, her wardrobe is, as
Esty has noted,
bigger on the inside than the out and has an alternate route. Lyra, boxed in her wardrobe, has no way to go but forward, as Pullman notes--not a loose plank nor a wobbly floorboard for the taking. What a perfect metaphor for his book! (Note too who pilfers some
leaf in that first chapter.
)
What a sad fate, that all that remains is to study in hopes of recovering a greater form of wisdom than first-grace. Not only is Pullman wrong about the sharp clarity of good and evil in Tolkien, as
Mister Underhill suggests--yet powerful misreadings are often grounds for new creative endeavours--he is also, it seems to me, labouring under a sorry misconception that in adulthood and adult wisdom there is no metaphor, no imagination. Even more sad, I suspect he thinks that in science there is no metaphor. He labours under the old C.P. Snow division of two cultures, yet that characterisation has, I think, become a historical relic long left behind by theorists of science.
I am even more surprised by his great allusions to Blake. What manner of misreading Blake must he have to be such a determined materialist?
I find myself agreeing with
Child's preference for Tolkien's civility while enjoying Pullman's inventiveness as
Lal does. Yet all this bit about embarassment, self-consciousness, irony, it suggests a need for distance. But doesn't Tolkien himself have this distance in his humour? Tolkien had a very mischievous sense of humour. I wonder, does Pullman?
Some years ago, a philosophy professor told us all a story about meeting a world famous philosopher (he did not name the felon). The two, caught up in a moment of high hijinks late at night, decided to roll toilet paper out the window of the men's room. They were interrupted by the arrival of the janitor, a straight sort of fellow who recognised the eminent men and sputtered at them that people had reported someone rolling toilet paper out the window of the men's room. In reply, the eminent philosopher, caught one would think red-handed, agreed with the janitor that the actions were untoward. "I know, it's terrible," my professor claimed the philosopher said, "will you help us? We are trying to roll it back in." Now there's a fly-on-the-wall story for
Tevildo!
I can't help but think that Tolkien would have relished that story.
