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

[Tim Regan]

No: HPFGUIDX 60567


Hi All,

--- In HPforGrownups Pennylin & Kia wrote:
[Kia]
> 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. 
[Pennylin]
> how do you *know* that Rowling and Pullman have never met?  

Any thread combining JKR and Pullman is inherently interesting, so 
top marks to Granger for that. But it's clearly nonsense, and we 
don't need to quote Pullman or Eco for that. Just list your five 
most striking Lockhart features and tick off the one's Pullman 
shares.

Here are mine:
1) Stunning good looks (Pullman's not ugly but he's no stunner)
2) Fabulous and flamboyant fashion sense (again, not Pullman)
3) Stupid (Pullman's clearly clever)
4) Writes popular autobiographies (Pullman's work isn't 
autobiographical)
5) Coward (I cannot see any evidence that Pullman is a coward)

QED.

Strangely point (4) has been debated in David's really funny post on 
OT-Chatter http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-
OTChatter/message/14372

But whether they have met is interesting. It would be fascinating to 
overhear their conversation (though isn't there a legend of Joyce 
and Becket meeting and only managing a polite hello?) Anyway, here's 
what Pullman had to say on JKR when he spoke at a book festival in 
2002 <http://windows.streamuk.com/hayonwye/2002/18.wma>. (It is 34 
minutes into the 1:04:21 clip)

"Well, just to clear up my opinion of Harry Potter, which you 
carefully invited me to give without actually asking directly. I 
think the stories are great fun, I think she does tell a story very 
vividly. She has this extraordinary property which seems to occur 
once in a generation. Enid Blyton had it, Roald Dahl had it, and now 
she's got it: the quality of making children want to read on without 
any effort at all. It's a mysterious thing, it's partly to do with 
story telling but it's not only that. The difference between them 
and J.K. Rowling though is that when adults now read Enid Blyton 
they think `what rubbish', when they read Roald Dahl they think `oh, 
this is nasty and cruel', and when they read J.K. Rowling they think 
`well she's much cleverer than Enid Blyton, she's not as cruel as 
Dahl – must be very good'. There are things she can do well and 
other things she doesn't do so well."

Later a kid asks him what he'd think of his own work if he was J.K. 
Rowling (convoluted I know) and he replies that he has talked to her 
and she hasn't read his novels, not because she doesn't like him, 
but because she hasn't had the time. Now this is doubly weird – it 
shows that they have met, but also seems unlikely. Why would she 
recommend his books so heartily without reading them? I can only 
assume that they met before she read them (which kind of implies she 
liked him enough to take the time to read his books) or that he 
misunderstood something she said.

Cheers,

Dumbledad