'Spun Candy' anyone?

[Roa_Aoife]

Originally Posted by davem

But what was it a 'real vision' of? & if it was a 'real vision' of something. how could Tolkien state the story had no inner meaning or message? If Tolkien's work reveals his vision of a 'reality' beyond the veil how could it have no meaning or message? One can only assume that he meant it had no meaning or message imposed by Tolkien himself & that he was communicating 'what really happpened' - ie the 'meaning or message' was not a personal one but rather an impersonal /universal one.

A "real vision" could also be be written as a "vision of reality." Not everything that is real has a meaning or purpose. Like Candy (and perhaps this is where Tolkien is very much like candy.) Candy has no meaning, no nutritional value, and no real reason behind it, but that doesn't make it less real. And if you have a sweet tooth as big as mine, it can make your whole day better. Tolkien's vision was "real" like that- it doesn't have to have a meaning to be; it just is. Maybe that's why we like Tolkien and Candy so much. It's a wonderfully freeing feeling to just let something be, especially if that something is yourself.

[HerenIstarion]

If Tolkien's work reveals his vision of a 'reality' beyond the veil how could it have no meaning or message

It seems to me (I'm forced to use this opening sentence a lot in this thread, now ain't I?) that there is no contradiction - it may be said so that LoTR has no inner message as it is a story and in itself a message. The message is in the telling. Of course, if one would dig, there one would find lot of symbols (consciously so in the revision) and implications and allusions, but from one of the possible points of you it verily may be said that all these are just parts that made up the bulk of the greater message - the story itself.

[Lalwendë]

I think that this essay by Pullman on Lewis puts paid to any idea that journalists are simply trying to 'bait' Pullman into making controversial statements about other writers, as this is his own willingly given opinion.

EDIT: I've just read through this transcript of a radio programme about the nature of fantasy which features Pullman and includes a lot about Tolkien. In the article, Pullman makes the comment:

Well the aim was always to tell the story. But you don't set out to preach, you don't set out to persuade or to give a lecture or to teach, heaven forbid, don't set out to teach. You just set out to entertain, to tell a story.

Which seems very contradictory to the times when he has criticised Tolkien for being mere entertainment. Isn't he saying the same of his own work here? Refuting the claim that he set out to put a message on the page?

Bear in mind that this programme seems to have had a lot of Tolkien fans on the panel, and it may have scared him a bit. I'm also not sure of the unbiased nature of it as it is a religious programme of some sort.

EDIT AGAIN
And another interesting snippet (hey, I ought to be making the tea, but I'm on a roll here ).

Scroll down this web chat and you'll see where Pullman himself joins in and he makes the following fascinating comment:

Fantasy and non-fantasy. Interesting! For better or worse, I've discovered, I am a fantasist. I resisted it for years, feeling that realism was a higher form, or nobler, or something. And I still enjoy reading realism much more than fantasy - most fantasy I've read is thin - I mean psychologically thin - unsatisfying. But my imagination catches fire with fantasy, and it burns fitfully and damply and with a lot of smoke and needs constant attention and fuss when I do realism. I guess I'm stuck with it. I do regret it, but it's like discovering that your daemon has turned out to be a dog and you always wanted a cat: you have to make the best of it. Whether I like it or not, I am a fantasist.

"Tell them stories ..." That was one of things I enjoyed most. When Mary sees the ghost of the old woman, the ghost says "Tell them stories," meaning of course that new ghosts have to tell the harpies their stories - true stories - in exchange for their passage back to the world. (True stories, because this is what I mean by the difference between "thin" fantasy and "rich" realism - Lyra's first, made-up story, which satisfied the people in the suburbs of the dead but which the harpies rejected brutally - whereas they listened avidly to her true story about the Oxford claybeds). The old woman's ghost says something like "Tell them true stories, and all will be well."

OK, this has got me thinking. Perhaps Pullman actually doesn't have a firm idea that he wants to get across, and this is why some of the things he says come across as contradictory and it could be why the end of HDM seems to fall apart; he has not settled what he really thinks, and so the messages are confused? Certainly Tolkien himself could be a bit like this - when we think about his work in a political context, and especially in his confusion over the symbolism of Galadriel and any religious meaning as time went by.

Some of what he says rings a bell with me. I also resist 'fantasy' as a lot of it is indeed 'thin', and yet it can be addictive. I know I'm not going to be successful, but I spend a lot of time searching out great fantasy; I'm 90% of the time disappointed. Loads of it is indeed like reading about "Krell The Cliche King from the Doom-mountains of Tharg". Hmm. But Tolkien's not like that! He is the original and his work is deep and poetic. I know that Pullman did not read Tolkien until well into adulthood, does this have a bearing on it? If you had read some vile fantasy works and then went to Tolkien you might just sigh and go "Oh God, not more ruddy Elves". I don't know. I'm sure someone here will be able to share what they felt?

Anyway, it looks as though Pullman here grudgingly (sheepishly?) admits that yes, he does like fantasy, even though much of it isn't much cop. Perhaps its that this is a different audience again to the reactionary, armchair iconoclasts and Islington types who devour the Observer on a Sunday and expect holy cows to be destroyed before their eyes?

And back to Tolkien. Its interesting his point about stories and about them being real, as I always get the sense that Tolkien's stories and characters are thoroughly real. How similar are tales of Aragorn/Arwen and Beren/Luthien to Tolkien's own experience of being separated from Edith? Sam as being like the ordinary but strong men he met in the Somme? Gollum is a mentally tormented human? Frodo's pain is like the pain of shellshock and PTSD? Eowyn's desperation to fight is like the desperation to fight of the 15 year old boys who lied in order to go to the battlefields of France? Tolkien's work is full of true stories.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

And back to Tolkien. Its interesting his point about stories and about them being real, as I always get the sense that Tolkien's stories and characters are thoroughly real. How similar are tales of Aragorn/Arwen and Beren/Luthien to Tolkien's own experience of being separated from Edith? Sam as being like the ordinary but strong men he met in the Somme? Gollum is a mentally tormented human? Frodo's pain is like the pain of shellshock and PTSD? Eowyn's desperation to fight is like the desperation to fight of the 15 year old boys who lied in order to go to the battlefields of France? Tolkien's work is full of true stories.

Okay, I haven't had and won't have time today to read over Lal's links but I can suggest a small proviso about this bit about real stories and Edith and Tolkien being separated from her.

Most of us I think know the story that Tolkien chose the inscription for his and Edith's gravestone, reading Beren for him and Luthien for her. We don't know if Edith agreed to this or not. And the story also goes that Tolkien once watched Edith dance as Beren did Luthien.

But what if we take Smith of Wootton Major as having some autobiographical significance, as being as 'real' as these other stories in the Legendarium?

Is Smith as real as the Beren/Luthien stories? Does Smith suggest that Tolkien had to be isolated, away from, distant his family? Was it something that he experienced which his family did not share? If so, how can Edith 'be' Luthien?

Is the 'reality' of fairy that it is a gift to special individuals and not everyone? Is fairy an isolating experience?

Of course, autobiography is not the only form of realism, so perhaps these questions are not what Lal had in mind.

But, I write in haste. 'Real' stories engage me now.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bb

But what if we take Smith of Wootton Major as having some autobiographical significance, as being as 'real' as these other stories in the Legendarium?

This is the kind of thing I was trying to get at in my earlier post (no 108)

I'm not sure whether it takes us too far off topic, but perhaps it ties in whith my post on Tolkien's agreement that he had 'broken through the veil'.

We are, perhaps, not dealing here with 'relevance' to the Primary World, which Pullman places so much emphasis on, or with 'meaning' or a desire to change the world, but rather a specific experience of another 'world' or kind of 'reality'.

Tolkien seems to imply, in Smith, that Faery is a reality of a kind, a world which is open to certain individuals. Those who are permitted to enter have experiences which are perhaps denied to the rest of us - though we may experience it vicariously. Of course, it may be that the reports of those who have wandered there may open the way to others. If nothing else those accounts make us aware of that other world, that there is more going on (that there is more than one history of the world, as John Crowley put it).

It may be that, rather than Middle-earth being a feigned history of our world, is actually a true history (or one of them) of Faery.

But what is the role of these 'Elf-friends', these 'Walkers between the Worlds'? It is, certainly, a mediating role. They are a living link between this world & Faery, a bridge across a void of a kind. 'Elf-friends' in the Legendarium have high, but often tragic, destinies. Often they find they belong in neither world, usually they find it is their own world that they can no longer remain in - they pass into Faery at the end. This is true of Frodo, Bilbo, Sam, Tuor & Earendel. For others there is a final bereavement as they cannot in the end pass into Faery & must live out a lonely existence in their own world (Smith is the classic case).

It seems, perhaps, that 'Elf-friend' is a sacrificial role, & that a reward is not guaranteed. Yet Tolkien clearly feels that it is essential for the human race as a whole. (Two quotes from the Smith essay)

'It is of course possible that they have a 'moral obligation (the sanctions of which we do nor know). It may be contained in the word 'kinship , and also he due to the fact that in the last resort the enemy for enemies) of Faery are the same as those of Men. In certainty the Elvish world as here depicted is not independent of the existence of the human world, as distinct from Men. The world known to Men as their habitation did and could exist without Men; but not Men without it. It is probable that the world of Faery could not exist* without our world, and is affected by the events in it — the reverse being also true. The 'health' of both is affected by state of the other. Men have not the power to assist the Elvenfolk in the ordering and defence of their realm; but the Elves have the power (subject to finding co-operation from within) to assist men in the protection of our world, especially in the attempt to re-direct Men when their development tends to the defacing or destruction of their world. The Elves may thus have also an enlightened self-interest in human affairs.

They, the Elvenfolk are thus 'beneficent' with regard to Men, and are not wholly alien, though many things and creatures in Faery itself are alien to Men and even actively hostile. Their good will is seen mainly in attempting to keep or restore relationships between the two worlds, since the Elves (and still some Men) realize that this love of Faery is essential to the full and proper human development. The love of Faery is the love of love: a relationship towards all things, animate and inanimate, which includes love and respect, and removes or modifies the spirit of possession and domination. Without it even plain 'Utility' will in fact become less useful; or will turn to ruthlessness and lead only to mere power, ultimately destructive.* The Apprentice relationship in the tale is thus interesting. Men in a large part of their activities are or should be in an apprentice status as regards the Elven folk. In an attempt to rescue Wootton from its decline, the Elves reverse the situation, and the King of Faery himself comes and serves as an apprentice in the village.

The 'health' & even survival of the Elven world is dependent on the health & survival of the Human world. Hence, a connection between the worlds must be established & maintained by both sides.

Whether Tolkien thought of himself as an 'Elf-friend' is an open question, but Flieger names him as one. He did feel isolated quite often, & the simple explanation for this is the loss of his parents at an early age & the loss of his childhood friends in WWI. Yet is that the whole story? The way he gravitated to others like Lewis who also shared the same love of myth & legend (hence of Faery) perhaps can be explained by his need for people who could understand his own 'double' life.

[drigel]

I'm not sure whether it takes us too far off topic, but perhaps it ties in whith my post on Tolkien's agreement that he had 'broken through the veil'.

Thats the way I had always viewed that quote: Going from something like the early Silm to LOTR, was going from extreme (elvish POV) 3rd person to humble (lowly hobbit) 1st person would take not only a break in the veil, but also a few years of walking around behind it.

Not sure if this had been mentioned, but I just got through reading an article about the beginning of filming the 1st of HDM. Nichole Kidman getting an invite for a role.

[davem]

Originally Posted by drigel

Not sure if this had been mentioned, but I just got through reading an article about the beginning of filming the 1st of HDM. Nichole Kidman getting an invite for a role.

I also note that the new Bond, Daniel Craig, is to play Lord Asriel.

'The name's Asriel. Lord Asriel. Licensed to kill (God)'

Wonder if they'll get Shirley Bassey to sing the theme song: 'Lord Asr-eel, he's the man, the man with deicidal tendencies....'

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I think that this essay by Pullman on Lewis puts paid to any idea that journalists are simply trying to 'bait' Pullman into making controversial statements about other writers, as this is his own willingly given opinion.

. . . .

. . .

OK, this has got me thinking. Perhaps Pullman actually doesn't have a firm idea that he wants to get across, and this is why some of the things he says come across as contradictory and it could be why the end of HDM seems to fall apart; he has not settled what he really thinks, and so the messages are confused? Certainly Tolkien himself could be a bit like this - when we think about his work in a political context, and especially in his confusion over the symbolism of Galadriel and any religious meaning as time went by.

Some of what he says rings a bell with me. I also resist 'fantasy' as a lot of it is indeed 'thin', and yet it can be addictive. I know I'm not going to be successful, but I spend a lot of time searching out great fantasy; I'm 90% of the time disappointed. Loads of it is indeed like reading about "Krell The Cliche King from the Doom-mountains of Tharg". Hmm. But Tolkien's not like that! He is the original and his work is deep and poetic. I know that Pullman did not read Tolkien until well into adulthood, does this have a bearing on it? If you had read some vile fantasy works and then went to Tolkien you might just sigh and go "Oh God, not more ruddy Elves". I don't know. I'm sure someone here will be able to share what they felt?

Anyway, it looks as though Pullman here grudgingly (sheepishly?) admits that yes, he does like fantasy, even though much of it isn't much cop. Perhaps its that this is a different audience again to the reactionary, armchair iconoclasts and Islington types who devour the Observer on a Sunday and expect holy cows to be destroyed before their eyes?

And back to Tolkien. Its interesting his point about stories and about them being real, as I always get the sense that Tolkien's stories and characters are thoroughly real. How similar are tales of Aragorn/Arwen and Beren/Luthien to Tolkien's own experience of being separated from Edith? Sam as being like the ordinary but strong men he met in the Somme? Gollum is a mentally tormented human? Frodo's pain is like the pain of shellshock and PTSD? Eowyn's desperation to fight is like the desperation to fight of the 15 year old boys who lied in order to go to the battlefields of France? Tolkien's work is full of true stories.

Throwing this out as a 'hypothetical' for the sake of keeping the thread going. I've always read that article on the Lewis centenary as related to reading habits of today's readers. And I wonder if a little bit of this isn't involved also with Pullman's thoughts about Tolkien.

Perhaps what really gets Pullman's goat is muddled or confused reading. He begins with observing how the centenary is a marketing/merchandising event rather than a reading event. And then he continues by examining how the story treats true Christianity rather shabbily--even drawing on Tolkien to support his point. Perhaps what Pullman cannot abide is a situation in which people flock to a story without any strong sense of its consequences of its world view. He dislikes thoughtless reading and admiration for something which might be at odds with the general tenor of culture as he sees it? That is, he dislikes pop culture and would rather we pay closer attention to real story? I think I must go read again that chapter concerning Lyra's death and the harpies' reaction to her story.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

And then he continues by examining how the story treats true Christianity rather shabbily--even drawing on Tolkien to support his point.

I think Pullman's analysis of Christianity is a frankly a bit silly. As an athiest with an axe to grind one cannot reallly expect an unbiassed analysis from him but his statements are hardly even worth considering. Lewis' Christianity is perfectly orthodox & fairly mainstream as far as I can see. As a non-Christain myself I don't get any sense that the philosophy behind the boooks is 'life-hating' or that Lewis is saying anyone is 'better off dead'. The whole point (perfectly in line with Christian teaching) is that after death we become more alive, that death is merely a transition to a fuller life in another state. It is actually life affirming in that it sees life as so wonderful that it offers even more, even more intense life. Certainly it is hopeful - Pullman condemns Lewis for hating life, but Lewis offers the possibility of eternal life to his characters while he himself offers only disolution & nothingness after death.

I don't think he can actually claim much support from Tolkien - the quote he gives from Tolkien is not a condemnation of Lewis theology but of his playing around with myth.

Perhaps what Pullman cannot abide is a situation in which people flock to a story without any strong sense of its consequences of its world view. He dislikes thoughtless reading and admiration for something which might be at odds with the general tenor of culture as he sees it? That is, he dislikes pop culture and would rather we pay closer attention to real story?

To quote from the interview Squatter linked to yesterday:

He finds it surprising and pleasing that The Lord of the Rings has had such a success. It seems to him that nowadays almost any kind of fiction is mishandled, through not being sufficiently enjoyed. He thinks that there is now a tendency both to believe and teach in schools and colleges that “enjoyment” is an illiterate reaction; that if you are a serious reader, you should take the construction to pieces; find and analyse sources, dissect it into symbols, and debase it into allegory. Any idea of actually reading the book for fun is lost.

“It seems to me comparable to a man who having eaten anything, from a salad to a complete and well-planned dinner, uses an emetic, and sends the results for chemical analysis.”

Its no coincidence that Pullman was a teacher before he became a full time writer - it is clear that his approach to fiction is exactly as Tolkien describes here: "a tendency both to believe and teach in schools and colleges that “enjoyment” is an illiterate reaction; that if you are a serious reader, you should take the construction to pieces; find and analyse sources, dissect it into symbols, and debase it into allegory. Any idea of actually reading the book for fun is lost."

This is exactly what Pullman has done in his reading of LotR. The work cannot just be enjoyed, it must be taken to pieces, broken up to find its 'meaning', which 'meaning' must be analysed to see whether it is 'relevant' to 'the youth of today' or 'the man on the Clapham omnibus'. Will the reading of this book make the readers better, more constructive members of society? Will it tell them what we want them to know?

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by davem

Its no coincidence that Pullman was a teacher before he became a full time writer - it is clear that his approach to fiction is exactly as Tolkien describes here: "a tendency both to believe and teach in schools and colleges that “enjoyment” is an illiterate reaction; that if you are a serious reader, you should take the construction to pieces; find and analyse sources, dissect it into symbols, and debase it into allegory. Any idea of actually reading the book for fun is lost."

I'm afraid I'll have to defend Pullman on that point as I don't think he would agree with that method of reading at all. See my earlier post number 34 on this thread and The Isis Lecture for what Pullman thinks about the analytical method of teaching literature and English language. He advocates a creative approach, and is very much against the idea of too much adherence to and analysis of structure.

I still think that he 'kind of knows' what he wants to say, but he is getting his messages confused. It does seem that with his statement on 'spun candy' he would indeed advocate Structuralism and all that malarkey, but he's actually more in favour of a creative free for all and is closer to Tolkien than he dares to acknowledge. The main differences seem to lie in the moral messages (that's probably not the right term, but I can't think of the exact way of saying what I mean right now; oh, the irony!) the two wish/ed to put across.

[The Saucepan Man]

I think that there is a misunderstanding here over Pullman's approach, and that is what is leading to the assumption that his opinions are contradictory.

I have not re-read all of the materials linked to here, so I may be wrong, but the sense I get is not that Pullman "requires" a story to have a message, in the sense of preaching a particular doctrine, philosophy or worldview, but that it be "weighty" in the sense of providing material for thought.

Certainly, most of the materials here suggest that he subscribes to the Tolkienian view of the importance of a piece of fiction as entertainment, and I would agree with Lalwendë's assessment in this regard above. But it seems to me that Pullman's definition of an entertaining story is one which is (or, perhaps more correctly, which he finds to be) thought-provoking. That is not to say that he regards it necessary to pull a story apart in order to find the depth within it, the analytical approach which Tolkien disdains above. Rather, he considers that a story which provides material for thought (even if such thought occurs at a less than conscious level) is, essentially, a more entertaining one than one which does not. (The assessment of whether a particular story provides such material is, of course, a subjective one, although I am sure that we could all agree on examples of those stories which do not.)

His comments on LotR concerning its "triviality" and "spun candy" nature indicate quite clearly that he does not find such depth in LotR. This links in with the thread on Psychological Depth, which I started some time ago on the basis of a quote from Pullman. He finds that the characters lack psychological depth, that there is no "weight" to them and he cannot therefore regard them or their story as providing anything useful to say on the realities of life (as he perceives them). For him, LotR is merely the account of a series of events linked up with nice descriptions of the landscape. It has no depth. There is nothing there which "grabs" him from an intellectual or (I presume) emotinal point of view.

If I am right in my assessment of his approach, I rather agree with Pullman on many points here. I would agree that, from my perspective, a story is likely to be more entertaining if it has depth to it and provides material for thought. I would aso agree that, to an extent, many of the principal characters of LotR lack psychological depth. Where I would disagree with him is that it follows from this that LotR does not provide material for thought or, indeed, that there is no such material within it. That said, and as I have stated earlier, different people have different tastes and, if LotR does not "grab" him intellectually and emotionally in the same way that it grabs others, then no one can force him to like it.

And I would still maintain that, even though not all of Pullman's comments that we have been discussing here derive from "baiting" by journalists, LotR and (to a lesser degree) the Narnia books remain the principle peaks in the landscape within which he works and, professionally (as a writer), he is obliged to grapple with them, both within his own mind, and also publicly when discussing his works and their place within the fantasy genre.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I'm afraid I'll have to defend Pullman on that point as I don't think he would agree with that method of reading at all. See my earlier post number 34 on this thread and The Isis Lecture for what Pullman thinks about the analytical method of teaching literature and English language. He advocates a creative approach, and is very much against the idea of too much adherence to and analysis of structure.

Well, I think there's a difference between what he says & what he actually does. He may condemn the analytical method but he still cannot resist breaking the story apart to find out what it 'means', what its 'message' is. He demands it have a message if it is to be taken seriously. He certainly cannot (it seems) enjoy a story simply as a story.

If we miss out ' that if you are a serious reader, you should take the construction to pieces' its difficult to argue that Tolkien was right about Pullman's approach:

a tendency both to believe and teach in schools and colleges that “enjoyment” is an illiterate reaction; find and analyse sources, dissect it into symbols, and debase it into allegory. Any idea of actually reading the book for fun is lost."