Pullman rips on LOTR, others

[Gwathagor]

I believe, Lalwende and Bethberry, that you are letting your strong dislike of Lewis's curmudgeonly tendencies overwhelm and misdirect your understanding of this particular part of TLB.

The point of the lipstick and invitations bit isn't to condemn the proper use of those things, but rather the deeper problem Susan has, of which the abuse of said items is merely the symptom. This makes a great deal of sense considering the context of the previous books: the apparent childishness of Narnia contrasted with a false, silly grown-upishness. This is a contrast that is made fairly regularly throughout the series (Edmund vs. Pevensies, Peter vs. Lucy in "Prince Caspian", Susan vs. Siblings, etc.)

[davem]

I think this section from the Introduction to Lewis' allegory 'The Great Divorce' sums up where he is coming from with Susan:

I do not think that all who choose wrong roads will perish; but their rescue
consists in being put back on the right road. A wrong sum can be put right: but
only by going back till you find the error and working it afresh from that point,
never by simply going on. Evil can be undone, but it cannot “develop” into good.
Time does not heal it. The spell must be unwound, bit by bit, “with backward
mutters of dissevering power” – or else not. It is still “either-or.” If we insist on
keeping Hell (or even earth) we shall not see Heaven: if we accept Heaven we
shall not be able to retain even the smallest and most intimate souvenirs of Hell. I
believe, to be sure, that any [person] who reaches Heaven will find out what he
abandoned (even plucking out his right eye) was precisely nothing; that the
kernel of wheat he was really seeking even in his most depraved wishes will be
there, beyond expectation, waiting for him in “the High Countries.”

Now, you may agree or disagree with that, but that's what Lewis believed & I think, as a consequence one can see Susan's (temporary?) fate as inevitable. Susan's fate was a direct consequence of Lewis' worldview.

For myself, I find most of Lewis stuff unreadable - though there are some jewels scattered throughout.....

[William Cloud Hicklin]

The traditional view of Vikings has recently come in for some rethinking, particularly as that notion of them comes down to us from those who fought with them. Rome, after all, had a vested interest in explaining just how and why she was conquered.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. First off, Rome (in the West) was centuries gone by the time of the first Vikings (traditionally Lindisfarne, 793)

In the second place, the portrait I referred to was the Norsemen's *own*, drawn from their quasi-historical sagas, and from Heimskringla. They were barely-concealed *proud* of their killers, even when they couldn't pay their weregeld and had to be outlawed. Reading what the Vikings wrote about *themselves* and their interpersonal relationships puts me in mind of nobody so much as LA street gangs: "show me respect or I'll put an axe in yo' ***."

This is not to say that the Vikings did not have admirable qualities: at least those qualities valued in a warrior culture- honor, loyalty, courage, generosity. But it was, unapologetically, a warrior culture, which regarded rapine, pillage, plunder and bloodshed as praiseworthy things and the true measure of a man.

Mind you, I *like* the Vikings. But while we can admire their seacraft and artwork and many other things, we shouldn't forget that that most ancient of parliaments, the Althing, was followed by the 'weapontake:' the men taking up their arms again after they left the assembly. And it's hardly a puzzle why no weapons were allowed inside......

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Gwathagor

I believe, Lalwende and Bethberry, that you are letting your strong dislike of Lewis's curmudgeonly tendencies overwhelm and misdirect your understanding of this particular part of TLB.

The point of the lipstick and invitations bit isn't to condemn the proper use of those things, but rather the deeper problem Susan has, of which the abuse of said items is merely the symptom. This makes a great deal of sense considering the context of the previous books: the apparent childishness of Narnia contrasted with a false, silly grown-upishness. This is a contrast that is made fairly regularly throughout the series (Edmund vs. Pevensies, Peter vs. Lucy in "Prince Caspian", Susan vs. Siblings, etc.)

One of the problems is that items such lipstick and stockings are heavily symbolic of adult female sexuality (along with high heels, glossy hair etc) and what Lewis is saying is that an interest in her own sexuality is "silly". That's both unhealthy and wrong. There is sometimes a tendency of fathers to fail to come to terms with their own daughters' growing up by preventing them (or attempting to prevent them, as they don't know what the girl is sneaking out in her school bag ) from doing such things as experimenting with make-up and clothes, in an unconscious attempt to keep them in childhood. And you do get adult men who have issues with their own partners/wives getting dressed up as they find it threatening - this even appears in entire cultures where women are expected to wear veils and so on. In our own western culture you can find this in the fashion industry where frailty and the look of adolescence is preferred over the look of a real, healthy, full grown woman. It is all to do with power; if women are kept in a state of childhood they pose no threat both in terms of their own potential power or the power other men could gain by 'stealing' them.

So there is very clearly a message about men's power over women in what Lewis says. The boys are allowed to grow and do 'manly' things, but are the girls allowed to grow and do 'womanly' things?

There's your Women's Studies lecture for the day

And all this business Lewis says about how grown ups cannot accept fantasy is nonsense. It is vital that people grow up, lest they become like Michael Jackson! Thank goodness Joy came along and shook Lewis out of his closeted little males only world!

[Gwathagor]

Like I said.

[obloquy]

In our own western culture you can find this in the fashion industry where frailty and the look of adolescence is preferred over the look of a real, healthy, full grown woman. It is all to do with power; if women are kept in a state of childhood they pose no threat both in terms of their own potential power or the power other men could gain by 'stealing' them.

Or maybe young, thin girls are actually more attractive than what you call "real, healthy, full grown women." Out of curiosity, do you suppose there's a single mastermind dictating the repression of powerful women, or is it a syndicate with an official charter and handshake? Then again, maybe fashion isn't exactly "all to do with power." Maybe fashion is fashion, and the struggle of women seeking more independence and influence has a little more to do with thousands of years of near-universal patriarchal tradition than what designers are selling to anorexic celebrities.

By the way, guys rule and girls drool.

[Eönwë]

Well, lots of authors "borrow" from others. Imean, at least Tolkien's is done discreetly, or at least, a lot of his books are his creation (but it does have a bit of a biblical connection).

But look at people like Christopher Paolini, he writes about King called Hrothgar. That is just Beowulf in disguise, not to mention his elves and what he calls urgals but sound verey similar to orcs.

And people like Terry Pratchett just take ideas from everywhere...

But thats just how life is as an author... *wink wink*

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by obloquy

Or maybe young, thin girls are actually more attractive than what you call "real, healthy, full grown women." Out of curiosity, do you suppose there's a single mastermind dictating the repression of powerful women, or is it a syndicate with an official charter and handshake? Then again, maybe fashion isn't exactly "all to do with power." Maybe fashion is fashion, and the struggle of women seeking more independence and influence has a little more to do with thousands of years of near-universal patriarchal tradition than what designers are selling to anorexic celebrities.

By the way, guys rule and girls drool.

You're dicing with death there, you'll have half the female Downs membership going "Tch"

Though to be serious, this argument about the link between fashion and power can actually be seen in history. I know not many historians are interested in what styles of frock the lasses wore and when (being that guns and swords and planes and stuff are more interesting - including to me) but there is a clear correlation between styles of dress and attitudes towards women. To take a recent example, the later 1940s saw a return to fitted, corsetted, and impractical styles just as women went back to their kitchen sinks to clear the factory jobs for returning men from war. But I shall not bore you with any more lecturing as that's getting right off the point

Getting right back to the issues Pullman has with Tolkien, the worst that can be said about it is that Pullman just doesn't find Tolkien 'serious' enough, and I have to say this is down at least to some essential differences between what the two men hoped to achieve.

On the one hand Tolkien was working from a basis of epic, heroic literature such as Beowulf and the sagas, at times quite dispassionate in that they do not examine what is happening in the characters' heads; whereas Pullman works more from the intense poetry of Milton and Blake which examine psychological matters and personal spiritual viewpoints.

One of the criticisms of Tolkien is that his characters are one-dimensional - this is because we are used to modern fiction which gets into the heads of characters, not to sagas which simply tell the tale. A lot of people do not realise that like in a Viking saga, in Tolkien's world we learn about the character and their motivation from the words he/she says or the deeds he/she does. Contrast that with Pullman, very much the modern writer, who uses the authorial voice, not the character voice, to tell us why Lyra wants to do this or that. And then go and read some Blake and you will find just the same thing.

So it boils down to influences and by extension, taste. Tolkien liked one thing, Pullman likes another. Tolkien, it must be noted, also "cordially disliked allegory", a particular form of writing in which the authorial voice is scrawled in red pen all over the page, and the form Lewis and Pullman have both chosen, to a certain extent; Tolkien didn't like Narnia and I think he also wouldn't have liked HDM, for artistic reasons.

Something else is important and this is that what Tolkien created was more than a 'mere' book. LotR is a precision crafted narrative, a world with just about everything it needs built in and added on. That is what you can get if someone is allowed most of their adult life to create one book - perfection. You certainly do not find this with Lewis and Pullman - much as I find HDM dazzling, it is full of errors and incongruous stuff, things which just don't 'fit' and narrative bad choices. The same is true of Narnia (together with the clunky nursery style and Pigwiggenry I find tedious). And Harry Potter. All these were conventional novels, churned out relatively quickly in comparison to Rings, which wasn't really a novel in any conventional sense but a perfect representation/reproduction of Tolkien's alternate world.

So is Pullman actually objecting to something which is quite outside normal literary conventions anyway, when he calls Tolkien boring?

[obloquy]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

You're dicing with death there, you'll have half the female Downs membership going "Tch"

Though to be serious, this argument about the link between fashion and power can actually be seen in history. I know not many historians are interested in what styles of frock the lasses wore and when (being that guns and swords and planes and stuff are more interesting - including to me) but there is a clear correlation between styles of dress and attitudes towards women. To take a recent example, the later 1940s saw a return to fitted, corsetted, and impractical styles just as women went back to their kitchen sinks to clear the factory jobs for returning men from war. But I shall not bore you with any more lecturing as that's getting right off the point

I don't see the correlation. I see a general atmosphere of conservatism that leads women to dress conservatively, and to carry out a certain traditional role while the men resume their old jobs.

Modern fashion has nothing to do with power. Most fashion designers are either women or gay men: where's their motivation to keep women from looking powerful?

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by obloquy

I don't see the correlation. I see a general atmosphere of conservatism that leads women to dress conservatively, and to carry out a certain traditional role while the men resume their old jobs.

Modern fashion has nothing to do with power. Most fashion designers are either women or gay men: where's their motivation to keep women from looking powerful?

You're wrong, thus proving fashion is indeed a ladies' thing

Originally Posted by Bb

The difficulty lies in how very, very far Lewis falls from the concept and understanding of spirituality which can be found in other writers and other people of more enlarged grace, hope, and charity.

Yes. Lewis instead gave us a kind of begrudging grace, and a strictly rationed hope. This is why Tolkien stomps all over Lewis as he just didn't bring that stuff into it - you get the sense that even Gollum got something in the end.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Gwathagor

I believe, Lalwende and Bethberry, that you are letting your strong dislike of Lewis's curmudgeonly tendencies overwhelm and misdirect your understanding of this particular part of TLB.

The point of the lipstick and invitations bit isn't to condemn the proper use of those things, but rather the deeper problem Susan has, of which the abuse of said items is merely the symptom. This makes a great deal of sense considering the context of the previous books: the apparent childishness of Narnia contrasted with a false, silly grown-upishness. This is a contrast that is made fairly regularly throughout the series (Edmund vs. Pevensies, Peter vs. Lucy in "Prince Caspian", Susan vs. Siblings, etc.)

Speaking for myself, I don't think the difficulty lies in my 'strong dislike . . . which misdirects [my] understanding of TLB."

The difficulty lies in how very, very far Lewis falls from the concept and understanding of spirituality which can be found in other writers and other people of more enlarged grace, hope, and charity.

[Gwathagor]

You won't find very many authors with more charity and compassion than Lewis.