'Spun Candy' anyone?

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

a) If the Daemons are merely 'symbols' they shouldn't have a separate consciousness, or feel emotions the individual does not feel, & certainly shouldn't know anything the individual doesn't; b) If they do have a separate consciousness this implies a 'split personality' & further implies that the individuals in Lyra's world are all psychotic; & c) if Pullman hasn't thought the idea through it wouldn't surprise me at all.

Oh dear. Aren't they supposed to be souls? Embodied souls? I'm sure there's a section where this is stated clearly. Just after Lyra and Iorek find the severed child Tony?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bb

Oh dear. Aren't they supposed to be souls? Embodied souls? I'm sure there's a section where this is stated clearly. Just after Lyra and Iorek find the severed child Tony?

Well, you can use the word 'soul' but don't you have to define what you mean by it? If an individual in a world without a True deity has a 'soul' what is its nature, how does it function & what is its relationship to the individual's ego? Is such a 'soul' immortal?

Using the word 'soul' doesn't help us understand the nature of the Daemons at all. If we replaced the word 'daemon' in my last post with 'soul' I think all my points would still stand – if anything it introduces even more problems. Pullman seems as vague as regards 'souls' as he is as regards 'Heaven'.

[davem]

And now for a word or two from Michael Moorcock.

[Roa_Aoife]

*sigh* Some people just can't appreciate a good story.... (More later, busy now)

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

And now for a word or two from Michael Moorcock.

Moorcock is a far more formidable person and SF authority. It is interesting to see how he examines the context and implications of stories. Tolkien said that it was the experience of war, of the trenches and the conditions of the Battle of the Somme, which birthed his sense of fantasy, and I think--I could be wrong about this--he suggested that this sense of fantasy was shared with other soldiers. Was fantasy supplying something in the absence of hope? Perhaps this is different merely in tone from Moorcock, who sees a taste for this kind of epic fantasy as deriving from a moribund middle class who cannot look forward.

A starting point for discussion.

I really like Doug Potter's illustrations. They're a hoot!

[davem]

More from Mr M. http://www.corporatemofo.com/stories/Moorcock1.htm

As far as I'm aware neither Pullman nor Moorcock have been through the kind of experience Tolkien had on the Somme. Don't know if this is at all relevant, but it occurs to me that they would both be freer in their analysis of evil, not having seen it face to face – both Pullman & Moorcock have the luxury of playing with evil, with the idea of the devil as Byronic rebel against authority. Tolkien simply couldn't do that, due both to his wartime experiences & his religious background. His wartime experiences & the loss of his mother & his childhood idyll in Sarehole were obviously behind the 'idealisation' of the countryside, while his years in industrialised Birmingham were the cause of his hatred of industrialisation. Of course his personal experiences & beliefs would have shaped his fiction. Moorcock & Pullman miss the essential point that Tolkien could not have written in any other style or about any other subject in any other way. Their comments not only attempt to invalidate his work, but to invalidate his life & experiences as well. In short, what both are saying is that he should have shut the hell up, that if his life & his experiences meant he could only write what he did, he shouldn't have written anything at all.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

Their comments not only attempt to invalidate his work, but to invalidate his life & experiences as well. In short, what both are saying is that he should have shut the hell up, that if his life & his experiences meant he could only write what he did, he shouldn't have written anything at all.

No they are not. They are merely expressing their opinion. As have you, concerning Pullman's works.

I am not surprised that these fantasy authors have expressed their opinion on Tolkien, given his standing within the genre. Particularly so in Pullman's case, given that it seems to be the frst question that journalists ask him (and as Bb, I think, points out, journalistic reporting of his response may not be the most reliable source of his views). They are entitled to express their opinion and to provide justification for that opinion, particularly when asked, and they are fully entitled to dislike Tolkien's works. Surprisingly ( ), it's not illegal to do so. I know many people to whom they do not appeal at all.

While I admire the works of both Pullman and (particularly) Moorcock myself, I do nevertheless find myself slightly at odds with their arguments, as expressed here. They both appear to take the approach that there is a particular way to write a fantasy/SF novel, namely the approach that each of them adopts. That assumes that all readers are looking (or should be looking) for the same thing in a novel, a stance with which I fundamentally disagree. It would be a dull world indeed if we were all to share the same tastes. It is difficult, I think, to make a qualitative assessment of differing authorial styles in a world where even the poorest writers (poorest, that is, in my opinion) can garner mass appeal.

Moorcock's arguments are to my mind the most compelling, being the more developed. I partly agree with him with regard to Tolkien's literary style, from a "technical literary" perspective. But, then again, technical expertise in the literary field is not always sufficent (or even necessary) to win the hearts and minds of readers, or indeed (as I have said) to garner mass appeal. I also partly agree with Moorcock's view on why tales such as LotR are so popular, but perhaps that is because I lean rather towards some of the characteritics that he defines in a Tolkien (and Pooh) reader, and unashamedly so.

Pullman's argument, in my view, is less convincing, although that is perhaps because we only have it secondhand. On that basis, what he fails to appreciate, I think, is that readers can enjoy his works purely as entertaining reads without feeling the need to identify, much less identify with, his "message", while other readers can find much meaning in Tolkien's works. On that level, his works are no different from those produced by Tolkien. It all comes down, again, to what appeals to the individual reader. (Do I hear echoes of the dreaded C-thread .)

My enjoyment of Pullman's trilogy primarily derives from my reaction to them as entertaining reads, and for many years I approached LotR on the same basis. I can discuss messages, authorial intent and the like. I think that both can provoke serious thought on the human condition. But I prefer to read them as enjoyable tales. As it happens, on an intellectual level, I find Pullman's view of human nature and good/evil the more acceptable, far morseo than Tolkien, whereas it is Tolkien who touches me at a deeper, more instinctive, level.

I have no issue with the basic premise behind the struggle depicted in Pullman's trilogy. Where, however, I do find him open to criticism, is in his attempt to portray this struggle as an all-encompassing one spanning the entire universe across multiple dimensions. It seems to me that he over-reaches himself and so loses credibility. My complaint about the latter parts of his trilogy, therefore, is more a technical one than a philosophical one. Tolkien, on the other hand, developed only one world, and concentrated in detail only on certain parts of it, both temporally and geographically. His works, therefore, come across to me as far more convincing (and thus engaging).

Overall, however, I find it refreshing occasionally to hear the views of those who do not regard Tolkien as the best thing since sliced bread, and I think it entirely proper (and indeed healthy) that those views be expressed, particularly when they are expressed intelligently and coherently (whether we agree with them or not), and especially on a Tolkien board such as this one.

[davem]

No they are not. They are merely expressing their opinion. As have you, concerning Pullman's works.

But surely the 'opinion' they are expressing is as I stated?

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

Of course his personal experiences & beliefs would have shaped his fiction. Moorcock & Pullman miss the essential point that Tolkien could not have written in any other style or about any other subject in any other way. Their comments not only attempt to invalidate his work, but to invalidate his life & experiences as well. In short, what both are saying is that he should have shut the hell up, that if his life & his experiences meant he could only write what he did, he shouldn't have written anything at all.

I don't think they are saying this, not Moorcock at least. Apparently, he met both Tolkien and Lewis in person and liked them as people.

What I think Moorcock is reacting to--and I agree with Sauce here that they have a right to express their opinion--is the depiction of fantasy as an escapist form of literature that glories a past. There are others who, when faced with the kind of experiences Tolkien's generation faced, did not look back but envisioned a different future. I don't think Moorcock is invalidating Tolkien's experiences so much as saying something about England.

I note that Moorcock no longer lives in England. He moved to Texas and apparently is thinking of dividing his time in France as well. He clearly has a frustration with what he perceives as the direction of English culture and society and I suspect that he feels Tolkien et al part of this. I really want to read Mervyn Peake now and compare him to Tolkien, to see if there is this juxtapostion which Moorcock suggests.

Originally Posted by Sauce

They both appear to take the approach that there is a particular way to write a fantasy/SF novel, namely the approach that each of them adopts. That assumes that all readers are looking (or should be looking) for the same thing in a novel, a stance with which I fundamentally disagree.

This is the point where I also tend to part company with Moorcock. The discussion of what fantasy is or what do readers of fantasy seek is interesting, I think, but like all literary manifestos, can overstate the case or overstep boundaries. I think it is refreshing to have one's sometimes unconscious or unexamined habits questioned and challenged. And even our conscious thoughts. I find absolute adoration of Tolkien--or of any writer--tedious and counterproductive in terms of helping me appreciate the writer.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Bb

I find absolute adoration of Tolkien--or of any writer--tedious and counterproductive in terms of helping me appreciate the writer.

Amen to that. I thoroughly agree, and I also find it counterproductive in terms of helping me to appreciate the writer's works. The more I hear how perfect and immaculate Tolkien was as a writer, the less inclined I am to delve into his tales again. He remains my favourite author, and I know that I will find myself once more immersed in his works when I do pick them up, but his works are not, in my eyes at least, above criticism. That's why it is refreshing, for once, to read an intelligent and thought-provoking critique of his style (as exemplified, in my view, by Moorcock's essay).

While there are some very well-expressed arguments made here against Pullman’s position, and I have no problem with that, there is also a slight undertone of “how dare he criticise Tolkien?”, an approach which automatically reacts against him simply because he does so. Fact is that there are an awful lot of people who do not respond to Tolkien’s works in the way that we do, and there is nothing wrong with that. To react against Pullman simply on the basis that he dislikes Tolkien, or dares to criticise him, or holds a different philosophical position from him (or you) is to make the same mistake that both Pullman and Moorcock make in assuming that their way is the “best”.