'Spun Candy' anyone?

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

This comes from his understanding of human nature. Pullman clearly believes that human beings are by nature good & are corrupted by superstition.

Hmmm. Lyra is repeatedly described as a liar; her stories and tales are similar to the "stretchers' which Mark Twain has his boys tell. Pullman even pronounces the name "Lie-ra" rather than, as I had assumed, 'Leera.' The children's games are presented not as simple play but as "war". For instance, the capture of the gyptians' boat could have had extremely serious consequences. The game Lyra plays of switching the coins which represent the dead daemons is also cruel--or at least thoughtless. For all of Lyra's eagerness to save her 'uncle' from the poison--that, too, I think, is presented more as a desire to partake of adventure--I think Pullman provides a serious attempt to suggest that children are not sentimental innocents, are not thoughtful or always considerate, are eager little creatures who are at the mercy of their desires and stimulations and who must through trial come to understand a moral stance. Look at how easily Lyra falls for Mrs Coulter at that first dinner and ignores boring old Dame Hannah. And look at how much her attitude towards Dame Hannah has changed by the final chapter. There's a moral development as significant as that of Austen's Emma. What redeems Lyra, saves her, are her experiences. She learns and she learns fast.

And I don't have any sense that Lyra has particularly been indoctrinated at Jordan, although she clearly understands the rituals of the college and its life. If anything, she has had the glorious advantage of having more freedom, more play, than most girls.

[Lush]

Lyra is repeatedly described as a liar;

Lyra the liar! Ahaha! Brilliant. Almost as good as "the right to bear arms" reversed into "the right to arm bears" (or so Hitchens suggests).

Pullman is brilliant in his wordplay. He's the Nabokov of the genre. Wry and unsentimental, not a gentle creature at all. Maybe this is why Tolkien irritates him so much.

[Roa_Aoife]

My picture is depressing? I encourage you to travel to Moscow and observe how these people pummel each other in the streets, especially if the weather is nice, or the grand way they embezzle money. My picture is realistic. Back in the Soviet Union, religion actually meant something to its clandestine followers. These days, most of it's been reduced to a platform for political posturing, something that I detest. Oh, there are people doing good together, even the slim inter-faith crowd that, for example, quietly runs shelters for thousands of trafficked women, but the overall situation is grim. This isn't a Rennaissance, it's more of a Dark Age with mobile phones.

I've been to Moscow and Ischefsk, a city at the base of the Ural Mountains which is far worse off than Moscow. I have friends who live in Ischefsk that I keep in contact with. I know exactly what it's like there. People don't pummel each other in the streets- they can't because soldiers with M16's are standing at each corner. And not everyone embezzles money because very few people happen to be in a position where they can do that. And political posturing in religion is something that takes place in any country where religion has sway over the people. Russia certainly isn't going to be immune to that. Yes, it's sad that it's used that way, but that doesn't mean everyone who claims to belong to each faith is a fraud. It's not a happy place, but it's getting better.

All of this is beside the point, however. I was using an anecdote as an analogy to present the idea that maybe Pullman does see more in Tolkien's works than he'd like us to think.

His attitude toward Tolkien doesn't sit well with me, but I agree with him more on Lewis, the man who denied a female character Salvation for cultivating an interest in "grown-up" things like stockings and the like. It seems odd to me that Pullman should reserve his harshest criticism for Tolkien, so far.

Actually, Susan wasn't exactly denied salvation. She didn't die in the train accident like the Friends of Narnia and their parents. She was traveling abroad in the states. Also, any denial had nothing to do with her liking grown-up things. It was because she lost her faith and stopped believing in Narnia, and more importantly, Aslan. The "grown-up things" were merely an analogy for this.

I think Pullman provides a serious attempt to suggest that children are not sentimental innocents, are not thoughtful or always considerate, are eager little creatures who are at the mercy of their desires and stimulations and who must through trial come to understand a moral stance.

*laughs* Anyone who works with children knows that…..

[Lush]

Yeah, I give up.

P.S. Pullman's a genius. Albeit a cranky one.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Lush

Yeah, I give up.

Pity, dear, as I always enjoy your posts, even if I disagree with them.

I, too, am disappointed by the implications of Susan's depiction. There's a very strong, horrible tradition in western culture denigrating any form of female sexuality and it's a shame that Lewis, with his love for Joy Davidman and his great learning from her, went this ambiguous route that is so open to such an interpretation. But we are all allowed our interpretations.

Originally Posted by davem

Is again my interpretation of the work. My feeling is that Pullman believes that there is a core of good in each being which must be 'awakened', whereas in my reading of the work they are morally neutral - which is one reason why I am not convinced by his conclusion. I see nothing in the story to make be believe that any of the characters have the capacity to create a perfect world. Pullman clearly does.

I must begin by saying that I have read HDM only once and not given it the depth of consideration which you have, so my thoughts are clearly less measured. That said, I'm not sure about this core of good which must be 'awakened'.

True that if we take Pullman at his word that every person must, in himself and herself, experience a "fall" from innocence, then it follows that this initial stage, if it is in keeping with the religious traditions of fall which Pullman and Milton worked in, must be some form of guileless, candid, uncorrupted state unaware of the knowledge of good and evil. (Wait, it's been so long since I read Milton that I'm not sure this applies. I mainly remember that he thought Eve was a great cook and he really loved epic similes.) Pullman would then reject the concept of original sin and believe that good can be drawn out of people.

However, if Pullman as an agnostic or possible atheist believes in evolution, then the question is, I think more murky. This particularly relates to the idea that humans have daemons, animal forms of alternate identities. If people have evolved, where or when does the ethical question of good and evil come into existence? Is it there in bacteria? Or does it evolve as cell division becomes more complex and sophisticated? Is the ethical form of human existence only something that is learned? Must human beings learn not to harm others in the pursuit of their own desires, for instance? This seems to me to be one way to interprete Lyra and the trilogy's conclusion and it is an evolutionary rather than an absolute question.

The daemons are, I think, central to understanding Pullman's conception of human identity. I relate this back to Lyra's behaviour as a child. Even if we grant, as davem does, that such behaviour is morally neutral, I think that, in giving Lyra a name which highlights her guile and her lack of candor and straightforwardness, Pullman may in fact be suggesting that human nature is not essentially good, but that goodness must be earned at a cost.

In short, I'm not convinced that this "republic of heaven" necessarily implies a perfect world here on whichever planet of whichever dimension we exist in, but rather the world which grants to humans the greatest possibility of ethical behaviour.

Again, I think back to Tolkien. He worked within a concept of a fallen world, of human beings who always and inevitably fail. And he eventually decided not to write about the fourth age, or a fifth age, or a sixth age, or a seventh.

What does someone whose imagination is given over to these later ages do? Is there no hope?

[Lush]

Now, first of all, to say that the Church doesn't listen to Jesus is idiotic as well as untrue.

Actually, I completely agree with Pullman on this one. Although perhaps you've (and or Tolkien ) had better experiences in that department.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Regarding the depiction of Susan in the Narnia tales....

These stories were written before Lewis became involved with Joy. Even as a young girl reading the stories, I had trouble with his portrayal of the maturing Susan. Till We Have Faces , which was written after his marriage, reveals that Lewis had learned a great deal about women. His portrayal of the two sisters is, in my opinion, his very best handling of female characters.