'Spun Candy' anyone?

[Roa_Aoife]

Yet if there is some kind of continuum in place here, I see Pullman and Lewis on one end and Tolkien on the other. Lewis and Pullman insist on contemporary meaning -- there is no pure history or faery that does not carry a lesson. They must necessarily reduce or subordinate much of their world to that particular message. Tolkien, by contrast, is the one who can appreciate what is most "worthless" and "messy" and at the same time most glorious -- art that mirrors beauty and nature and the intricacies of the soul, with the lessons present but still secondary to the enormous complexities of life.

However, Lewis never (to my knowledge) spoke against Tolkien's style. Nor did he ever insist that fantasy be a mere tool for conveying lessons; it was simply the path he took. Nor did he ever state that someone not using his method was wrong.


Pullman's reactions to Tolkien may be creating the opposite effect of his desire. As an analogy:

When the Iron Curtain fell in Russia and Communism's hold started to weaken, evangelists from many different religions went pouring into the country. For the most part, they expected a lot of resistance from a people who had been taught everyday in school that God did not exist. The evangelists were surprised when the people of Russia were eager to hear everything they had to say. When some remarked on this, the people replied that becuase the government tried so hard to convince them that Gid did not exist, then he must be real, or else they wouldn't have tried so hard. After all, if he wasn't real, why did the government keep bringing it up?

Perhaps Pullman is aware of the real nature and depth of Tolkien's work, but because it isn't used to answer a question, he doesn't want people to think of it as good fantasy, but as "spun candy" so that his own style will look better by comparison. After all, if Tolkien is just a candy fantasy, why would Pullman care?