[HPforGrownups] Pullman is Lockhart was Re: The Hidden Key to Harry Potter

[Kia]

No: HPFGUIDX 60342

Penny wrote:

>I've actually never seen her express any opinion (good or bad) 
>on Pullman's writing or even mention him. Do you have any 
>sources?

Scholastic chat Oct 2000:
Are there any books you would recommend to your fans to read 
while they await Book 5?
Loads! Read E. Nesbit, Philip Pullman, Henrietta Branford, Paul 
Gallico. Just read! 

AOL chat Fall 2000:
Read Clockwork by Phillip Pullman or Skellig by David Almond or 
... let's see ... anything by Paul Gallico, or The Little White Horse 
(for girls!) by Elizabeth Goudge or ... ANYTHING! Just keep 
reading! 

The Oregonian October 22, 2000:

On other writers: "Philip Pullman is a writer I very much admire. I 
think he can write most adult authors off the page. . . . I think
he's amazing. His book 'Clockwork' is a book that I think is an 
absolutely stunning piece of work. I often get asked at events. 
'What can I read? I'm done with the Harry Potter book.' That's the 
book I recommend. There's a writer called David Almond, 
another British writer, he wrote a novel called 'Skellig' that I
think is funny... " 


Press Club - 20 October 1999:

SB: What other books would you recommend for a nine-year 
old?

JKR: Um
 oh, loads of books. Um, anything by Phillip Pullman.

Have to add that Pullman's most controversial book "The Amber 
Spyglass" was already released in 2000, so Rowling doesn't 
seem to have problem with his ideas. The essay I quoted in my 
previous post was published back in 1998 (after CoS was 
written) and is called "The Dark Side of Narnia".


>Well, like I said, it doesn't seem fair to me to dismiss his entire 
>thesis and
>all his arguments, just because you don't believe he's hit the 
>mark with one
small tangential point. It doesn't *matter* whether Lockhart's real 
>life modelis Philip Pullman, Jorge Arantes (her ex), a mixture of 
>people or someone else entirely. That point is completely 
>inconsequential to Granger's 
>overall message. Yes, Granger is up-front that he dislikes 
>Pullman's writing and that he thinks the world of Lewis. But, it 
>really isn't *necessarily* "wishful thinking on Granger's part" as 
>you say, Kia. It *might* be; then >again, it might not be. Unless 
>JKR ever discloses the actual model for >Lockhart, we won't 
>*know* for sure. Well, not unless she were to >publicly discuss 
>Granger's theory in particular and admit its truth >or disavow it. 
>This seems unlikely to happen. 

>Again, whatever you may think about that particular point, it's 
>really so incredibly tangential to the overall arguments 
>advanced in the book that it doesn't make much sense to me to 
>dismiss his book on those grounds alone. 


Well, actually it is important. I will quote Eco again, to illustrate 
why: "*insert some magic numbers equations about the 
measurements of the Pyramids by someone called Piazzi Smyth 
here*... The perimeter of the base is nine hundred and thirty-one 
meters. Divide by twice of the height and you get 3.14, the 
number "pi". Splendid, no?... Most of it is nonsense. To begin 
with if you divide the base of the pyramid by exactly twice the 
height, and do not round off, you don't get "pi", you get 
3.14172254. A small difference, but essential. Further, a disciple 
of Piazzi Smyth, Flinders Petrie... reports that one day he caught 
the master chipping at granite wall of the royal antechamber to 
make his sums work out... Gossip, perhaps, but Piazzi Smyth 
was not a man to inspire trust...."

I never said that everything in Granger's work is nonsense, I 
suspect even that Rowling's Christian beliefs will make itself 
heard late in the series. But Granger is like Piazzi Smyth here, 
we caught him chipping at a granite wall, so to speak. 

He uses Rowling and her work for his own anti-Pullman agenda.  
Lockhart is a fraud, a liar, he isn't good at anything, but memory 
charms and smiles, he is actually one of the villains in CoS. 
Saying Rowling wrote Lockhart as Pullman is a nice theory, but if 
Granger has done the littlest of researchs, he must have known 
that this is impossible. The only piece of evidence Granger has 
is that Pullman wrote about a (female) character named Sally 
Lockhart once, which to me and with keeping Rowling's widely 
available quotes in mind, is more of an homage than a diss.

And if Rowling would portrayed Pullman here (the two have never 
met by the way - so how could she pick up on anything that is 
worth making it into a character?), she would have "bashed" him 
and I can't see her doing that, not when she admires his work.

And I think Granger knows that. It's a factual and willful mistake 
on his part. He is chipping at the wall to make his 
measurements meet and tells us that the base divided by twice 
the height is pi, and hopes that we never find out that it isn't. And 
with that in mind, his work, becomes dubious.

He wants Rowling to be a Christian author and quite frankly, right 
now Harry Potter is not an "inkling" work. It could be one, but right 
now, it's not Narnia, it's not Lord of the Rings, not by long shot, 
however much Granger wants it to be. And Granger has an 
agenda in this book and I think this colors his evidence. 

With this and the Pullman thing, I have a hard time to accept that 
Granger isn't over-interpretating and willfully so to get his desired 
results.



Kia