What does the sixpence = ?

[Bergil]

Anyone who accuses Tolkien of idealizing monarchy had best consider what George Washington, John A Macdonald, and so forth would do upon seeing a modern election (throw up, then go make a few rewrites). it's still better then a bad monarchy, but only an idiot or a candidate (most of whom are idiots) wouldn't rather have a good monarchy. A good democracy would of course, be the very best that we know of yet, but let's not dream.

Also, here's another example of "the light and the dark". Playing card games, (fixed deck of 52 cards with fixed values), is "in the light" because they're respetable, but you might find trading card games more fun if you're willing to "go into the dark" and risk being condemned as a nerd.

[Lalwendë]

Pullman says one particular thing in this article which is very astute:

In adult literary fiction, stories are there on sufferance. Other things are felt to be more important: technique, style, literary knowingness. . . . The present-day would-be George Eliots take up their stories as if with a pair of tongs. They’re embarrassed by them. If they could write novels without stories in them, they would. Sometimes they do.

In this respect he has a lot more in common with Tolkien and Lewis (and Rowling) than he thinks, the power to capture the imagination by simple story. I read a lot of contemporary fiction and I have to say that much of the time I am very disappointed with weak, useless stories, which leave me feeling more than a little angry that I have been 'conned' into buying x novel. If I want poetry, I read poetry, if I want philosophy I read philosophy, if I read a novel I want a damn story; if it has got poetry and philosophy in it, then that's even better, but the story is paramount.

He misses one point which his Dark Materials shares with LotR, the theme of growth. This cannot be called infantile. Frodo in particular grows up through his travels and his troubles; he leaves behind his bucolic existence and enters the perils of the wider world, returning home utterly changed. So do the other Hobbits, but unlike them, Frodo cannot cope with the changes which have come over him and he has to leave again. This is a fundamentally grown-up and modern theme; we can say that Frodo has become alienated through what has happened and the picture Tolkien painted of him was of a person unable to reconcile a changed self with a changed world.

However, I don't want to make a list of "see, you're wrong" points.

Pullman's radicalism is a very pipe and slippers kind of radicalism, one which does not wish to have the cushions disturbed or the cleaner suddenly decide not to turn up one morning. He wishes the Kingdom of Heaven to become a Republic, which is something I quite like the idea of myself, having a quite unorthodox view of God and a natural lack of trust for dogma, but I do have to ask if the Republic of Heaven would just become another kind of restrictive system. I get the impression that for him, Blake's philosophies are fine in a book, but might not be acceptable in life.

One thing I do not like in Pullman's world is that the Daemons, when they settle into adult form, take on our attributes. Lord Asriel has a Snow Leopard, and Mrs Coulter an exotic monkey, but why do all the servants have little dogs and humble birds? I am uncomfortable with this.

Still, I like His Dark Materials as it not only raises some fascinating questions and ideas but its a damn good story, one of the best I have ever read. For that, I am much more prepared to answer Pullman's criticisms in a considered way, yet when it is an author who has put out a dreadful novel or other book, particularly of the kind Pullman has described, I am far less tolerant.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

... made 'politically correct'.

An interesting term, politcal correctness. In its original guise, it had the right aim which was, as you say, to promote tolerance and respect. But in its extreme form it does, as you imply, breed intolerance and disrespect. Political correctness, although an abhorrent term, is not bad per se. But, just like many movements and ideologies, it is unattractive when taken to its extreme.

Davem, I am not a great fan of those who seek to alter literature, or indeed any form of art, in order to bring them into line with modern social mores. There are instances where it may be justified (replacing the thuggish golliwogs in Noddy with goblins, for example), although even then I would approach the issue with caution. In general, and outside the realm of responsible and reasonable censorship, I think that people have little right to re-write stories which they themselves have not created. That should almost always be within the prerogative of the author alone. And I was merely speculating whether Tolkien himself, on seeing the way in which his tales have been used and labelled by extremists and critics alike might have had cause to reconsider and temper them somewhat. I was most certainly not suggesting that the story should be altered now by officious "do-gooders" simply because of they are accused by some of showing racism or by others to support a racist agenda. I would be bitterly opposed to any such attempt at latter day revisionism of his tales.

No, I am not saying that LotR should be re-written to satisfy the likes of Johann Hari or to prevent its misuse by extremists. I am merely expressing a desire to see their points addressed through sensible and constructive engagement, rather than being dismissed as unworthy of response. The likes of Shippey may provide coherent and logical arguments in their published works. But I don't see them out there promoting those arguments and taking on the likes of Hari. Apparently the only ones who were prepared to engage with Hari in response to his article were seemingly the border-line insane. I am uncomfortable that the task should be left to them.

Esty, the Pullman piece was an interesting read. Thanks. I enjoyed his books and I think that he has a lot of useful things to say. He does seem contradict himself at times, although that may just be the editorial influence of the article's writer. But as Lalwendë points out, he probably has more in common with Tolkien than he would care to admit. I disagree with his view on LotR. But I would expect a discussion with him of his view in this regard to be both fascinating and entertaining.

Ultimately, we should be open to criticism of Tolkien, since Tolkien himself should not be above criticism. By placing him there, we risk committing a kind of extreme "political correctness" ourselves - brooking no dissent and stifling discussion. But by considering such criticism objectively, and also by responding constructively to it, we may just learn a little bit more about the man and his works ourselves.

[Mister Underhill]

Originally Posted by SPM

But by considering such criticism objectively, and also by responding constructively to it, we may just learn a little bit more about the man and his works ourselves.

But where's the fun in that? It's been a huorn's age since we had a good tarring and feathering of an uppity critic round here. Whatever happened to good ol' fashioned mob justice? While everyone is busy being objective and rational, my torch and my pitchfork are gathering dust in the closet. Fie!

[Estelyn Telcontar]

That New Yorker article on Pullman is long! It took me awhile to get through it, and I found myself agreeing and disagreeing with his various views on fantasy literature. I have read His Dark Materials and greatly enjoyed the books, while disagreeing with his basic concept of belief. (Granted, organised religion has aspects that I would gladly discard, but I had to willingly suspend belief in order to read Pullman's books.)

I think the matter of religion is significant in critics' appraisal of literature. In today's largely secularised world, an atheist is more likely to be taken seriously than one who brings his own religious convictions into his works, whether overtly or indirectly. The difference of opinion between Pullman and Tolkien rests heavily upon this aspect, as I see it.

However, it seems to me that Pullman would agree with much of what Tolkien wrote in "On Fairy-Stories". Consider his quote:

‘Thou shalt not’ might reach the head, but it takes ‘Once upon a time’ to reach the heart.

The same thing goes for the idea that children's stories are worthwhile to write and to read:

There are some themes, some subjects, too large for adult fiction; they can only be dealt with adequately in a children’s book.

That's a quote worth putting into a signature!

I'm not sure why he claims that Tolkien's book has no depth. Is there a fundamental difference aside from religion that keeps him from recognizing what we see? He too subcreates a world in a very convincing manner, but Fantasy must mean something different to him. I'm just not sure what.

[davem]

Originally Posted by SpM

Ultimately, we should be open to criticism of Tolkien, since Tolkien himself should not be above criticism. By placing him there, we risk committing a kind of extreme "political correctness" ourselves - brooking no dissent and stifling discussion. But by considering such criticism objectively, and also by responding constructively to it, we may just learn a little bit more about the man and his works ourselves.

I am open to criticism of Tolkien - but I'm going to respond to the critic in kind. If he/she is respectful of Tolkien, informed & rational in what they say I'll be respectful, informed & rational in response. If, on the other hand, like Hari, Greer, Jacobson, Edmund Wilson, Pullman et al, they are insulting, disrespectful, ignorant & only out to grab headlines off the back of a great Artist, I don't see why I should treat them, or what they say, with any respect.

I really can't see that I have anything to learn about Tolkien from critics like that. Pullman is typical - he has no desire to debate Tolkien's work, merely to insult him in order to appear 'clever'. HDM is an entertaining kids' book but has no real philosophical depth - 'We must build the Republic of Heaven' is about as meaningful as 'We must help those colorless green ideas sleep furiously'. I didn't find anything he said interesting - it was pretty much a collection of truisms & cliches:

—“We need to ensure that children are not forced to waste their time on barren rubbish”

“every single religion that has a monotheistic god ends up by persecuting other people and killing them because they don’t accept him.”

“we can learn what’s good and what’s bad, what’s generous and unselfish, what’s cruel and mean, from fiction”

And as for:

I think we should read books, and tell children stories, and take them to the theatre, and learn poems, and play music, as if it would make a difference. . . . We should act as if the universe were listening to us and responding. We should act as if life were going to win. . . .

That's pretty much what Tolkien said - only he said it better.

[Child of the 7th Age]

On Pullman's public "dishing" of Tolkien, see this news article. This was published in 2000 before PJ's movies came out:

Pullman's insistence on truth to human nature lies behind his dismissal of the fantasy writers to whom he is often compared: JRR Tolkien and CS Lewis. "I dislike them for different reasons. The Lord of the Rings, for all its scope, weight and structural integrity, is not a serious book because it doesn't say anything interesting or new or truthful about human beings. It tells an essentially trivial story. The goodies are always good and the baddies are always bad....."

.....The conclusion Pullman has come to is that people have within them the capacity to react and respond in a number of ways. His characters change; they make choices. His children, especially, are neither all good nor all bad. Lyra has spent a lifetime lying but it doesn't stop her having integrity when she needs it; Will has killed a man. "I'm not dewy-eyed about children like Kenneth Grahame or AA Milne. I spent too long as a teacher," he says. "I'm clear-eyed about them...."

The italics are my own. Honestly, I see this as the same simplistic garbage that some critics have been spitting out since the late sixties. I agree with Davem. This is not thoughtful criticism. It is a knee jerk reaction based on personal prejudice.

There are things about Pullman's books that I find interesting and delightful, although there are also times when I have to suspend my own values and simply accept the author's viewpoint as a given. If I am able to do this with Pullman, why can't Pullman make some attempt to do it with Tolkien?

The author Pullman really hated was not Tolkien but Lewis. Ironically, I see clear similarities between Lewis and Pullman. Both used their writings as a "bully-pulpit" for their own beliefs in a way that Tolkien did not.