'Spun Candy' anyone?

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

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.

Davem, please state your justification for this assertion, by reference to Pullman's own words.

Originally Posted by davem

Well, I think there's a difference between what he says & what he actually does.

As I have indicated, I see no contradiction.

Pullman, like Tolkien, disdains the analytical, dissective approach and asserts that the primary aim of reading should be enjoyment. For him personally to enjoy a book, it must have some "depth" that resonates with him, which provokes thought in him. He finds no such depth in LotR. Therefore he does not enjoy LotR. Being a fantasy writer (and commentator) himself, it is inevitable that circumstances will arise in which he will be required to explain his feelings towards LotR, given the novel's stature within the fanatsy genre.

Where's the contradiction?