Harpers and Queen: Philip Pullman on Tolkien and Winterson on JKR

[Tim Regan]

Hi All,

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1353204,00.html

Sorry if someone's posted this already but recently a piece in "The Times" on Philip Pullman was doing the rounds because "The Times" quotes Pullman belittling "Lord of the Rings". "The Times" is actually quoting from an interview in December's "Harpers and Queen" so, needless to say, I rushed out and bought my first ever copy of Harpers since it is not available online. There are several things in it that wind me up.

Firstly, there's an apparent contradiction in Philip's views of Tolkien. Here are the two quotes which I'm having trouble reconciling:

>>> 'Tolkein?' he says. 'The Lord of the Rings is not a serious book because it doesn't say anything interesting, or truthful about the human condition' <<<

Then, later in the article we have

>>> '[...] Telling an adventure story with witches and demons is not enough. I am interested in the Quest - and the Quest, however you decide to tell it, is the big story about human nature.' <<<

Now I'm slightly troubled that the capitalization here implies something grander, but isn't Lord of the Rings about the Quest? Or at least a quest?

Then there's a critique of fantasy literature that also troubles me:

>>> 'On the whole those writers are uninterested in language, and they live in a cult world of their own. They read me, but I don't read them if I can help it.' <<<

I love reading Pullman interviews as he can usually be trusted to have a thought provoking and quotable view on any subject, but isn't this sweeping condemnation of a genre exactly the kind of prejudice that we have to put up with from people about children's literature?

Certain fantasy authors are clearly concerned with exploring human nature, even if their use of language isn't as impressive as Pullman's. Take China Miéville for example, his books (like "Perdido Street Station" or "The Scar") use fantasy worlds to allow him to examine real moral issues from new angles. He also sides with Pullman about Tolkien, though my favourite criticism he gave was the pithy and rather fun: "rare the clause is that reversed isn't" in the Socialist Review  http://www.swp.org.uk/SR/259/SR3.HTM (Tolkien and Yoda alike).

There are also several things that Jeanette Winterson says in the Harpers article that are annoying (though I really like her books too).

>>> he will enter JK Rowling territory, safe in the knowledge that, unlike her, he is everywhere considered the real thing; the best children's writer since Tolkien. <<< 

Why should Philip's success be cast in terms of JKR's failure to win-over high-brow critics? Surely they are just both brilliant?

Then we have

>>> he is not vain enough to be tempted into sequels he does not believe in. He won't churn it out Harry Potter style. <<<

What? His Dark Materials was conceived as a trilogy, and is now followed up with a fourth book (which I thought was lovely, by the way). Harry Potter was conceived as a seven book series to match Harry's seven years at school, and currently runs to five books. In what sense is JKR churning out unnecessary sequels she doesn't believe in? Do you think Winterson read the Harry Potter books? If she had she'd realise that they cannot stop now, with Voldemort abroad.

Finally Winterson states that

>>> He won't be drawn on whether he will return to Lyra and Will, left parted in parallel Oxfords at the close of The Amber Spyglass. <<<

Won't be drawn eh? I'd have thought publishing "Lyra's Oxford" after "The Amber Spyglass" and talking in interviews about writing "The Book of Dust" was actually 'being drawn'.

Rant over. I was hoping writing you all this email would prove cathartic, but I'm more wound up than when I started :-(

Cheers,

Dumbledad.

PS Sorry if this post pops up on other fora you are on, I did get a bit carried away cross-posting.