[HPFGU-OTChatter] Harpers and Queen: Philip Pullman on Tolkien and Winterson on JKR

[Sherry Gomes]

Hi,

Personally, I read the first in pullman's trilogy and was bored stiff.  I
had no desire to read the others.  The characters were uninteresting to me
and not very likable.  Yes, not all characters are likable in anything, but
at least they are interesting and complex in both Tolkien and Rowling.  

Tolkien created a whole world that is believable and so real, that I don't
even like to read good fan fiction of LOTR.  JKR may not be the most
excellent writer in a technical sense, but she is an amazing story teller!
And often, the reason I read is to read a good story.  

So, for me, on both counts, Tolkien and Rowling, I think Pullman is way off
base.  

Sherry


-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Regan [mailto:timregan at microsoft.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2004 2:36 PM
To: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Harpers and Queen: Philip Pullman on Tolkien and
Winterson on JKR



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.




________HPFGU______Hexquarters______Announcement_______________

Before posting to any HPFGU list, you MUST read the group's Admin Files!
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin%20Files/

Please use accurate subject headings and snip unnecessary material from
posts to which you're replying!
 
Yahoo! Groups Links