Pullman rips on LOTR, others

[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?