'Spun Candy' anyone?

[davem]

(Ok, I found a reference to this statement of Philip Pullman on another board)

In an essay in the New Yorker Pullman states

At one point, Pullman and I stopped by the Eagle and Child, an Oxford pub where Lewis and Tolkien used to meet regularly with a group of literary friends. (They called themselves the Inklings.) A framed photograph of Lewis’s jowly face smiled down on us as we talked. In person, Pullman isn’t quite as choleric as he sometimes comes across in his newspaper essays. When challenged, he listens carefully and considerately, and occasionally tempers his ire. “The ‘Narnia’ books are a real wrestle with real things,” he conceded. As much as he dislikes the answers Lewis arrives at, he said that he respects “the struggle that he’s undergoing as he searches for the answers. There’s hope for Lewis. Lewis could be redeemed.” Not Tolkien, however: the “Rings” series, he declared, is “just fancy spun candy. There’s no substance to it.”

Now, what's interesting is that Pullman thinks the Narnia Chronicles are 'redeemable' while LotR is not. I wonder what he means by 'redeemed' here? Is he saying that the Narnia books could be changed to fit in with his own philosophical position while LotR could not? Apparently Lewis is asking the right questions, but getting the 'wrong' answers, while Tolkien is not asking any questions at all.

Is this in any way correct? Is Lewis asking difficult questions & Tolkien merely producing an 'entertainment'?

What's interesting is that Tolkien effectively said in the Foreword to LotR that he was writing an entertainment, a long tale that would move his readers, but that it was not an allegory, or an attempt to explain the nature of life, the universe & everything. Lewis called his Narnia books a 'supposal' - 'suppose the Son of God had appeared in a world like Narnia - what would happen?'

So, is it correct that Tolkien was not asking 'questions', & therefore not offering 'answers'? I suppose one could argue that he was presenting us with the harsh facts of life & death, without offering answers (how could he if he was not asking any questions?).

But if Lewis is 'redeemable' does that mean that there is a fundamental difference between the works of the two friends? And if Pullman is correct what does this say about the difference between the Middle-earth & Narnia?

Personally, I was never 'convinced' by Narnia or the worlds of HDM - both seemed fake, made up - perhaps because in each case the author is using their story to ask questions (& offer answers), while Tolkien was not.

So, is LotR 'spun candy' in the sense that it is not a didactic work? Perhaps - reading both HDM & the Narnia books I always felt I was in a classroom, being 'taught' something, while reading LotR was like the Summer Holidays, runnng through the fields, exploring the woods, having adventures.

[Roa_Aoife]

I'm not familiar with the HDM series or Pullman at all, and so I have little to offer on that front. From the article though, it would seem that he takes the same route that most atheists (take no offense if you are one) take: that is, they regard anything having to do with religion as a mistake. Which is ironic, because atheism is a religion in itself. I mean, it takes some serious conviction to say for certain that is no God.

Was Tolkien asking questions? I think he was asking just one: "How far can I take this world?" Was his work filled with religious themes? That's been debated here before, time and time again. (My personal favorite is still the "Is Eru God?" thread.)

The difference between Tolkien and Lewis? Lewis was an ardent defender of Christainity and an apologeticist (someone who uses reason and logic to defend faith). Tolkien wasn't. He never bothered arguing with anyone about his beliefs. He just had them. Some may have spilled over into his writings, but it seems apparent that he was writing because he loved to write. Lewis loved to write, but he used his skill to explain and defend what he believed.

Personally, I think Pullman is mistaken about Lewis. I don't Lewis was struggling for answers when he wrote Narnia. I think he had the answers and was trying to explain them to everyone else in a parable, much like Christ did. Tolkien wasn't trying to explain anything.

[Folwren]

Before I post any answers (I'm definitely considering writing a post up), I was wondering if you could tell me what HDM meant?

-- Folwren

[davem]

Originally Posted by Folwren

Before I post any answers (I'm definitely considering writing a post up), I was wondering if you could tell me what HDM meant?

-- Folwren

The 'His Dark Materials' series (Northern Lights - or Golden Compass, Subtle Knife, Amber Spyglass)

[Folwren]

Oh. His Dark Materiels. I read The Golden Compass and didn’t like it. Too brutal and too full of evil for my taste.

Spun Candy? No. Bad description, I’d say. And as for Lewis giving wrong answers. . .well, you can’t imagine how many people have said that about a lot of his stuff, but I’d disagree entirely. Lewis is one of the best, in both writing and in theological matters.

I have heard Tolkien’s writing bashed quite a few times. There was one critic (and the book is at home, so I can’t quote him exactly), who said that the LotR was a childish fairy tale - empty, shallow, and ridiculous and not worth reading. I’d as soon believe this fellow as Pollman, who describes it as ‘spun candy.’

Lewis and Tolkien wrote for two different reasons and neither of them are wrong reasons. One is simply better than the other. Lewis’ reason for writing was to enlighten people, to help them, to make them understand - lift them up out of this dark world and place them in a better place with more hope. This is a spectacular reason to write - especially if you can put it into such charming stories as the Narnia books or his other fiction, as The Space Trilogy or Till We Have Faces. Tolkien wrote for the mere pleasure of it, but he didn’t leave out all the redeeming value. There are many, many, many authors out there today who write for the mere pleasure of it (that young chap who wrote Eldest, for instance, and got his book copied millions of times) and who’s books hold no value in it and no depth. These books (excuse my language) are trash. Most fantasies are like that. And some people, if they don’t know what good writing is and what depth is, might think that all fantasies are the same thing.

Tolkien may have written for entertainment, but who’s to say the books didn’t teach you anything? He did not write specifically to teach about Christ, Christianity in general, or anything like that, but he did happen to put into his books a lot of truths that can be used in our world.

No, Tolkein’s works are not ‘spun candy’, nor are Lewis’ books not redeemed already - they passed the test when his pen left the paper.

– Folwren

P.S. I realize this post somewhat strayed from the point. I won't deny I didn't quite understand the initial question, but upon further reading and looking up some words, I think I did, in the end.

[davem]

Clearly there is depth & meaning in Tolkien's work - if you look for it. Certainly it is moving, but principally it is Art, not didiacticism. I think this is what Pullman fails to grasp. To him the purpose of literature is to teach. The author is a teacher, passing on his wisdom to his readers, telling them the way things are - or should be. Hence, he doesn't argue with Lewis intention, only with the answers he offers. I suspect this is why he has a greater animus against Tolkien - because Tolkien isn't attempting to teach anything in LotR. He is attempting to create a work of Art. Pullman, therefore, cannot argue with Tolkien in the way he can argue with Lewis (hence Lewis is 'redeemable' - ie Pullman feels that if Lewis were still around he could be argued into adopting Pullman's point). What Pullman realises is that he cannot argue with Tolkien, because Tolkien would be simply standing by his Tree & smiling.

Of course, my real problem with Pullman is that what he has to 'teach' is so trivial, so inherently silly & 'PC' that he mostly bores me (I like the daemons, the armoured bears & the witches, but I suspect Pullman would say I was missing the 'deeper' meaning & relevance of the story - though actually those three creations are among the most interesting aspects of his novels).There's nothing more irritating than someone coming up to you & trying to impart their 'wisdom'.

Its the same with the way he always seems to have to keep sticking the boot into Lewis & Tolkien. Who is this guy anyway? He's written one novel that has been taken 'seriously' by a handful of pseuds. Its eqivalent to some amateur dramatist suddenly finding some play of his picked up & performed in the West End & proceeding in every interview to say how terrible & worthless Shakespeare is.

But now I'm digressing.

[Encaitare]

If spun candy = cotton candy, yum! No wonder I love LotR so much!

I think the very fact that Tolkien does not ask questions is a reason why his secondary world is so convincing. The "real world" does not work in allegories or symbols; questions about life, the universe, and everything are not offered, but arise as a result of living in that world. With LotR, the reader can come away with questions even though they have not been asked, and perhaps those questions have more merit because they expand the work in a sense. Instead of the author asking certain questions and offering answers (or expecting the reader to find his/her own answer), the reader can process what s/he has read and then build upon it. I think that is more important and inspiring than any question-and-answer session between a book and its reader, expecially because such a Q&A session is a one-way process. I daresay the reader could even be the questioner, and then search in the book for an answer that suits him/her -- after all, LotR is meant to be applicable rather than allegorical.

Originally Posted by Roa

Which is ironic, because atheism is a religion in itself. I mean, it takes some serious conviction to say for certain that is no God.

With risk of digressing into an inappropriate topic (for this forum, anyway), I'd just like to say that atheism is not a religion. It often requires faith, yes -- but faith in reason rather than a deity.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

Its the same with the way he always seems to have to keep sticking the boot into Lewis & Tolkien. Who is this guy anyway? He's written one novel that has been taken 'seriously' by a handful of pseuds. Its eqivalent to some amateur dramatist suddenly finding some play of his picked up & performed in the West End & proceeding in every interview to say how terrible & worthless Shakespeare is.

But now I'm digressing.

And Tolkien never had any axes of his own to grind. *cough*Shakespeare*cough*

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by davem

Clearly there is depth & meaning in Tolkien's work - if you look for it. Certainly it is moving, but principally it is Art, not didiacticism. I think this is what Pullman fails to grasp. To him the purpose of literature is to teach. The author is a teacher, passing on his wisdom to his readers, telling them the way things are - or should be. Hence, he doesn't argue with Lewis intention, only with the answers he offers. I suspect this is why he has a greater animus against Tolkien - because Tolkien isn't attempting to teach anything in LotR. He is attempting to create a work of Art. Pullman, therefore, cannot argue with Tolkien in the way he can argue with Lewis (hence Lewis is 'redeemable' - ie Pullman feels that if Lewis were still around he could be argued into adopting Pullman's point). What Pullman realises is that he cannot argue with Tolkien, because Tolkien would be simply standing by his Tree & smiling.

Firstly let me say that I loved HDM, it's one of my favourite books (well, sets of books, strictly speaking) and it had me very upset at points. Pullman conjoured up some truly startling creations, a wonderful main character and a vivid world. But he almost ruined it with the ending and all this business with God and Angels. That to me is argument enough to prove that 'message' novels can in fact sometimes be less worthy than 'entertainment' novels.

I would never claim that one type of book is better than the other, but a novel can be ruined by a heavy-handed or overbearing 'message'. Primarily we read fiction for pleasure; unless we're students of literature there's little point in wasting precious leisure time on a dull book. But likewise we don't always want to read frothy tripe. Unfortunately Pullman is of the school of thought that thinks literature (and no doubt films and TV too) must be 'worthy'; there are plenty of people in the opposite position who seek out the most mindless entertainments they can find.

Anyway, one thing we are overlooking is that Pullman must sell his books, and he seems to have identified a market. Those in the UK will recognise the middle-class, left-leaning type of person who likes to scoff at 'popular' entertainments and will know how much these types profess to despise Tolkien - usually coming up with the same tired old argument that Tolkien is 'racist' . Pullman is merely pandering to the audience he seeks, who will flip open the papers gathered around the Aga in the Islington 'farmhouse' kitchen on a Sunday morning and like to read cosy reviews they feel comfortable with. Exactly the sort of people who were booing like children who'd just seen the Pantomime Villain, at the Big Read final when Tolkien won bestest book ever.

Fact remains that Pullman wrote HDM which was amazing, and then almost ruined it by clumsily trying to make a point towards the end. HDM is also the only work he's put out that's broken out of the kids' corner at the library so I suspect he's been into the sour grapes a bit and is trying to intellectualise simple dislike.

[Lalwendë]

In the sense that Pullman calls LotR 'spun sugar' he means that it has no depth, but if we mean thatl a 'spun sugar' book is simply not didactic then that's a different question.

I reckon we'd all agree that Pullman is wrong and LotR does indeed have a lot of substance. I happen to think LotR is not didactic at all, so I might be entitled to call it 'spun sugar'; but this leads on to questioning whether a book must be didactic in order to be 'worthy' and to have depth.

Pullman I think is being deliberately provocative, as he knows that literature does not have to be didactic in order to have substance. The whole history of folklore and mythology is filled with what seem to be simple stories that conceal a great deal of meaning, as is the Bible. Poetry can also seem to be simple 'froth' and entertainment but is actually filled with meaning - Blake's Songs of Innocence and Experience might seem to be simple poems at first reading but that couldn't be further from the truth.

Tolkien simply lays out a story upon a page and then leaves the reader to get on with the reading, and they may or may not find the deeper substance. I know many readers who do not, but they enjoy the books all the same and can talk about all the detail; they simply prefer not to analyse, just to enjoy. I think that this is a big factor in why Tolkien is so popular; his work appeals to a huge range of types of reader.

If he had written an allegory, his audience would have been very different. The Chronicles of Narnia have a big audience, but I'm sure I'm not alone in finding that Lewis lets me down as a reader of fantasy by telling me what to think. Just knowing that the books have this 'message' puts me off. I find it takes me out of the secondary world created and dumps me back in the real world. Likewise I found that HDM was spoiled by including God and Angels. Maybe its personal preference, but I find Tolkien's work much more subtle; a 'message' can be found for all kinds of people there. I suppose rather than being 'spun sugar', the writing style found in Tolkien's work is the subtly flavoured three course meal as opposed to the Big Mac and Fries style you often get from the book with an overt 'message'.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

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

No. You ascribe to them motives and desires which I do not think are justified by their opinions, as stated, at all, and you are attacking them on the basis of your interpretation of what they mean, rather than on the basis of their stated opinions.