Pullman Versus Tolkien

From an interview with the Dark Materials author:

His story is a rival to the narratives put forward by two earlier Oxford writers, J.R.R. Tolkien's "The Lord of the Rings" and C.S. Lewis's "The Chronicles of Narnia". Pullman loathes the way the children in Narnia are killed in a car-crash. "I dislike his Narnia books because of the solution he offers to the great questions of human life: is there a God, what is the purpose, all that stuff, which he really does engage with pretty deeply, unlike Tolkien who doesn't touch it at all. ‘The Lord of the Rings' is essentially trivial. Narnia is essentially serious, though I don't like the answer Lewis comes up with. If I was doing it at all, I was arguing with Narnia. Tolkien is not worth arguing with."

It’s true that Lewis and Tolkien are engaged in very different projects, and the former is more didactic than the latter; that Pullman would see this as a reason to dismiss the Rings saga as “trivial” tells you a great deal about where his own fantasy saga went wrong. Being a Christian, I’m favorably inclined to Lewis’ polemical intentions, but even I can see that they sometimes step on the toes of his storytelling. Which is to say that I can see why Pullman-the-atheist would find them deeply irritating. But an appropriate response to this irritation would have been to write an “atheist’s Narnia” in which the polemic is less abrasive – and therefore more effective, perhaps – than Lewis’s Christian sallies sometimes are. More myth, in other words, and less message; more Middle-Earth, perhaps, and less Narnia. Instead, Pullman seems to have set out to take the things he hated about Lewis’ writing and recreate them, but at a heightened, more hectoring pitch. The world-building that makes The Golden Compass so compelling and fun – the panzerbjorn and the witches, the Jules Verne-meets-Tolkien landscape – is thus gradually abandoned as His Dark Materials progresses, no doubt on the grounds of its inherent “triviality,” in favor of a thudding polemic that passes well beyond Lewis and approaches the didacticism of Ayn Rand.

I also liked this bit:

Pullman says that people who are tempted to take offence should first see the film or read the books. "They'll find a story that attacks such things as cruelty, oppression, intolerance, unkindness, narrow-mindedness, and celebrates love, kindness, open-mindedness, tolerance, curiosity, human intelligence. It's very hard to disagree with those. But people will.”

Indeed. This is Atlas Shrugged in a nutshell: A style of literature-as-polemic that seeks to persuade the reader of its argument by associating those characters who share the author’s point of view with every possible virtue, and those who don’t with every possible vice. The result is a self-contained world – where Christians are all Nazis, say, or successful capitalists are all saints and geniuses – that’s persuasive so long as the reader stays immersed in it, but that can’t survive any contact or contrast with reality.

Comments

Ross: we had a disagreement about this back in 2005 (http://gideonsblog.blogspot.com/search?q=%22snow+queen%22) - sounds like you've come around to my side of the argument. Am I right?

Posted by Noah Millman | December 10, 2007 2:04 PM

"The Lord of the Rings is essentially trivial."

I'm sorry, but it's hard for me to take him seriously after saying that. Say what you will about Tolkien, his fantasy is anything but "trivial." It's clearly informed by a deeply Catholic outlook, it just doesn't lower itself to didacticism. Although it's obviously not on the level of, say, Homer, the way it instructs and teaches is not through philosophical argument (which really shouldn't be in literature), but through the actions and motivations of the characters. Sorry, but Pullman is proving himself to be a hack.

Posted by Derrick | December 10, 2007 2:09 PM

Also, it was a train crash. (Since it's not in quotation marks, though, that is more likely to be the interviewer's error.)

Posted by James Kabala | December 10, 2007 2:53 PM

The very fact that Pullman does not find the "great questions" in Tolkien sheds some light on the nature of contemporary atheism. I would argue that the central theme of the "The Lord of the Rings" is death, the passing of beauty so that it can be saved, the renounciation of power for the sake of love. That these are the crucial religious questions is simply inconceivable from Pullman's standpoint. For him, like for most of today's atheists, God is not associated with the experience of beauty and love but imagined as a center of moralistic power. They can only think of salvation in juridical, not onthological terms.In other world, they are Calvinist atheists. They rebel against the God of late northern-European Christianity, but it si still the only one they can imagine.

Posted by Carlo | December 10, 2007 3:00 PM

It's been a long time since I read Tolkein, but from what I remember, there isn't anything especially Christian in The Lord of the Rings. Certainly there are the big themes--"death, the passing of beauty so that it can be saved, the renounciation of power for the sake of love"--but those are universal themes, not particularly Christian. On the other hand, there is plenty of stuff in there that is rather un-Christian, for example the consistent equation of outward beauty with inner goodness, and outward ugliness with inner evil; the fact that the evil characters, except for Gollum, are beyond any possibility of redemption; and the sharpness of the opposition between good and evil characters, with the good characters portrayed as essentially without sin, except for the influence of the one ring.

Arguably, also, the cosmology of LotR is Manichean, rather than Christian, though in the Silmarillion Tolkein gives Middle Earth a more Christian cosmology, with a creator god and the original dark lord Morgoth as a fallen angel.

Posted by Brendan | December 10, 2007 3:17 PM

To be fair to Pullman, I've seen him give a longer version of the same answer in a different interview:

The Atlantic tends to eat comments with links, so I'll give the full url: filmchatblog.blogspot.com/2007/11/philip-pullman-extended-e-mail.html

"Tolkien was a Catholic, for whom the basic issues of life were not in question, because the Church had all the answers. So nowhere in 'The Lord of the Rings' is there a moment's doubt about those big questions. No-one is in any doubt about what's good or bad; everyone knows where the good is, and what to do about the bad. Enormous as it is, TLOTR is consequently trivial."

Now, that's a quote that's undoubtedly going to offend some people, but it does provide some context for what Pullman means by "trivial." He's complaining that LOTR presents themes of good and evil without questioning the nature of good or the nature of evil.

I don't think that's entirely fair, nor do I think LOTR would be genuinely "trivial" even if the criticism were valid. But it's a point that's worth discussing. I don't think Pullman is complaining that Tolkien is insufficiently polemical; he's complaining that Tolkien never questions or challenges the moral code of his universe. It's all just the White Hats fighting the Black Hats.

As has been noted here, it's telling that Pullman prefers didactic lessons about right and wrong, complete with straw man villains, and considers the deeper religious themes of love, loss, and sacrifice to be trivial.

Posted by Random Passerby | December 10, 2007 3:45 PM

Well, it may not be up to the level of metaphysical doubt that Pullman likes (neither, for that matter, is Homer, who is quite certain of HIS world), but on a narrow level it's false to say that everyone in Tolkien agrees on "what to do about the bad." Isn't the Council of Elrond rather a lengthy argument about,er, just that?

All this "questioning" as the only thing that's non-trivial... it really is rather shabby and small-minded, and would seem to me to make the lives of most actual people quite "trivial."

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | December 10, 2007 4:19 PM

Brendan:

yes, Christianity is concerned precisely with the "universal themes." What many people miss is the fact that the most universal things can also be those who are most easily forgotten. Human rights, for instance, are "universal" but were also universally ignored by most of the world's historical cultures.

As for black/white moralism in Tolkien, that accusation would make more sense if at the end of the book Frodo had triunphantly tossed the ring into the fire. In general, the delicate workings of freedom (and the necessity of mercy) seem to come up at several points in the book. Except, it is not an abstract freedom, in the sense that bad decisions make it harder and harder for the characters to embrace the good, to the point that some of them are functionally unable to do it (e.g. Saruman). That's quite realistic, in my observation.

Posted by Carlo | December 10, 2007 4:51 PM

I don't think Pullman is complaining that Tolkien is insufficiently polemical; he's complaining that Tolkien never questions or challenges the moral code of his universe. It's all just the White Hats fighting the Black Hats.

Except it isn't. One theme Tolkien almost hits us over the head with is the fluid back and forth alchemy of good and evil; how the two are interrelated; how those given over to the latter are capable of making a free choice to come back to the former; how things are very often gray; and why it's important not to judge a book by its cover. Thus there's the example of Gollum/Smeagol, whose roots lie in the good, whose present is mostly aligned with evil, and yet who, in his own way, is also a victim, and capable of good, with a role to play before it's all over. And there's Boromir, and Saruman. And Theoden. And Galadriel. There's actually quite a bit of moral agonizing going on in LOTR, and it's hardly child-like in its presentation of its moral universe. Heck, deliberately or not, Tolkien even raises questions about free will, and in doing so is almost post-modern. I mean, it seems to me Frodo wasn't exactly acting of his own volition when he refuses to complete his mission at the end of his quest; you could hardly blame the enslavement of the world on the Ring-Bearer had this last minute faltering resulted in a Sauronic takeover.

What Tolkien doesn't mince words about though, is the existence of a moral order, of good and evil. He's no positivist. That makes him seem quite the savage in they eyes of the post-modernist, and that is what the dog whistling about Tolkien's failure to challenge the "moral code of his universe" is all about. Tis true: Tolkien doesn't challenge the existence of evil, and the importance of doing something about it, even when one can play but a small role.

Posted by Jasper | December 10, 2007 5:21 PM

"This is Atlas Shrugged in a nutshell: A style of literature-as-polemic that seeks to persuade the reader of its argument by associating those characters who share the author’s point of view with every possible virtue, and those who don’t with every possible vice."

This is totally wrong. The ostensible arch-villainess of the book, Mrs. Coulter, and its Byronic hero, Lord Asriel, are both intensely complex, multi-layered characters whose motivations reflect a quite nuanced view of human nature. Till the very last passage we are kept wondering if they can be classified as good guys or bad guys--Pullman's point being, of course, that such classifications are functions of a religious or Manichean worldview and are thus disconnected from reality.

Posted by Tara | December 10, 2007 5:54 PM

Tara has a point. But er, are there any representatives of (Pullman's) "Christianity" that aren't, roughly speaking, utter rotters?

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | December 10, 2007 6:02 PM

"No-one is in any doubt about what's good or bad; everyone knows where the good is, and what to do about the bad. Enormous as it is, TLOTR is consequently trivial."

What an odd thing to say when one of the central themes of the book--wrestled with by character after character--is whether the end justifies the means. Nearly every character in the book wrestles with the problem of appropriately using or not using some object of power or another.

I understand that many modern readers find TLOTR a bit dry in terms of characterization (though for my money that is just the laziness of always expecting a narrator who can read everyone's mind). But to write: "everyone knows where the good is, and what to do about the bad" makes me wonder if we are talking about the same story.

Of course maybe his inability to see that lesson is played out elsewhere--he sells out his considerable writing talents for a third book that preaches instead of tells a story, and his co-opting of the dark side works about as well as Saruman's.

Posted by Sebastian Holsclaw | December 10, 2007 6:08 PM

What really creeps me out is the pedophilic overtones of adults petting kids' personal daemons in Pullman's sick fantasy. Kids lack the developmental capacity to handle that stuff, which is why it is not appropriate content for books aimed at kids. Atheists and Christians alike should be able to agree on that.

I suspect that Pullman is being controversial just to get us talking about him. Otherwise we would dismiss him with the 10,000 other fantasy writers who are, well, TRIVIAL!

Obviously Tolkien deserves credit for raising the genre of fantasy novels so much that you could almost say he invented it. His influence is as inestimable as his profundity. Check out his essays and posthumous works to see the depth and breadth of his lifetime achievement.

If C. S. Lewis can write Christian kid novels, it's noly fair to let an atheist write an atheist kid novel. If he can pull it off with enough imagination and skill to enchant fans that grow by the millions decade after decade, and if people write Ph.D. theses on his novels, and if great poets and artists laud and build on his works reverently, then maybe he could be compared to the greatest fantasy authors. However, so far Pullman is just riding the commercial coattails of the recent Harry Potter, Narnia, and LOTR movies with a Disney movie deal.

The box office gave him a voice, so he's playing agitator in order to keep us from ignoring him. It seems to be working for the moment, but that can't change the fact that he is creepy, which is worse than trivial.

Posted by d | December 10, 2007 6:27 PM

Brendan,

Yes you're right, I had the same reaction on reading 'Lord of the Rings', that the cosmology is more Manichaean than orthodox Christian. Or at least, a Christian universe from which God/Christ has withdrawn Himself. Which made it more compelling in a way, as it often seems that that is like the world in which we live. God comes down to perform miracles rarely at best in our world, after all, and prefers do work through His servants.

The idea that outward appearance reflects inward character may not be particularly Christian, or even particularly morally acceptable, but it's a common theme of mythology and folklore the world over, and it certainly makes fiction more interesting. As for the idea that there are some beings in Tolkien's work that are completely irredeemable, it's maybe better to think of those as other intelligent species, not humans. It so happens that the only intelligent/sentient species that we know of, humans, is capable of both good and evil. But there might be other sentient species in the universe that are, in fact, irredeemably evil. In which case of course no mercy ought to be shown to them, any more than Tolkien to his Orcs.

Posted by Hector | December 10, 2007 6:33 PM

yeah there is something quite definitely creepy about the books. can't put my mind on it, but there is.

by the way, for anyone who wants a fix of some uplifting spiritual science fiction, i would again recommend 'The Sparrow."

Posted by Hector | December 10, 2007 6:44 PM

Re: It's been a long time since I read Tolkein, but from what I remember, there isn't anything especially Christian in The Lord of the Rings.

It’s the conceit of LOTR that it takes place in the fairly distant past: long before Christ, long before Abraham even. So there can’t be anything explicitly Christian in Middle Earth. Nevertheless Christian themes of Grace and Providence suffuse the entire trilogy, always just beneath the surface and never in a way that is preachy or strident. This makes Tolkien a vastly superior writer to either Pullman or Lewis.

Re: On the other hand, there is plenty of stuff in there that is rather un-Christian, for example the consistent equation of outward beauty with inner goodness

You need to visit an Orthodox Christian Church where no effort is spared in delighting the senses by that very equation. The saints are always beautiful and beautified in the ancient Christian aesthetic tradition. More than a little of this can be found in older strains of Catholic art as well.

Posted by JonF | December 10, 2007 7:47 PM

Much here needs to be responded to, but the medium does not allow for extended argument. The following points must be made:

1. Tolkien certainly intended his work to be fully consistent with orthodox Catholicism. For Pullman, this apparently means that it is ipso facto beneath serious consideration, which strikes me as ad hominem reasoning on a massive scale.

2. The perception that Tolkien’s good characters are just Good and his bad characters just Bad is a widespread fallacy, for which the Orcs are mostly responsible. Evidently it is the case that no Orc is redeemable, any more than the monsters in Beowulf are (to use that analogy that would naturally have occurred to Tolkien). Quite evidently the theological implications of the Orcs troubled Tolkien, and he makes a halfhearted and unsuccessful attempt to pass them off as mere autonoma under Sauron’s control.

3. Leave the Orcs out, and all the sentient characters in LotR are possessed of free will and capable of redemption. Indeed, the central moral absolute of the work is insistence on respect for the free will of others, simply because the redemption of each person is an objective of infinite importance. I do not understand how an attentive reader can fail to notice that the distinguishing characteristic of the Wise is their abstention, not only from naked compulsion of others’ choices, but from coercion disguised as advice. The moral failures of the characters who are not redeemed (Denethor, Saruman) are explicable in similar terms.

4. All this comes into focus on the figure of Gollum. Gollum is as close to being utterly corrupt as it is possible to be – but he too is redeemable. Gandalf tells Frodo so early on, but Frodo cannot accept it. Frodo’s change of heart is the goal of the central journey of LotR. Only Frodo is capable of it, and that is why he is the Ringbearer, and why his name means “wise.”

Not trivial, not at all. I have not read HDM, but all I have read makes its “message” seem half-baked by comparison.

Posted by Roac | December 10, 2007 7:59 PM

Jasper is right on.

Posted by Mike S. | December 10, 2007 10:28 PM

for example the consistent equation of outward beauty with inner goodness

Why do people keep saying this? Aren't the Hobbits closest to Tolkien's heart, and aren't they rather unbeautiful (if adorable)?

Posted by Mike S. | December 10, 2007 10:31 PM

It seems, based on the comments, that I've forgotten some things about LotR, so I'll trust that others have better memories.

I do think the outward beauty=inner beauty generally holds true though (as you say, Mike S, the hobbits are adorable). JonF, of course I have been to orthodox Christian churches many times, and I appreciate the role that beauty plays in religious art and allegory. But equating beauty and goodness in the real world is contrary to Christian teaching. Certainly the Bible does not do so.

Hector, I thought this was interesting: "It so happens that the only intelligent/sentient species that we know of, humans, is capable of both good and evil."

C.S. Lewis speculated in one of his books that there could be other species in the universe, and that God might have redeemed them in ways entirely different from his method on Earth, through Christ, or that some might have remained unfallen. I don't think he considered the possibility that some would be irredeemably evil. Wouldn't that raise problems for Christians? Surely God, being omnipotent, could redeem anyone?

Posted by Brendan | December 10, 2007 11:16 PM

Meant to quote the next sentence after that in Hector's post, but you get the idea.

Posted by Brendan | December 10, 2007 11:17 PM

Mike, you've made an excellent point. The equation of outward beauty with inward goodness is not made by Tolkien, but (mistakenly) by many readers.

The hobbits are indeed adorable, but unlovely. Look, too, at Strider (""I think one of his spies would-- well, seem fairer and feel fouler, if you understand." "I see," laughed Strider. "I look foul and feel fair. Is that it?"), the Dwarves (a most unlovely folk, but more often good than evil), the Elves (a very lovely folk, but many of them -- moreso in the Silmarillion than in LOTR -- definitely susceptible to evil), Saruman (whose appearance, when it's described at all, is distinguished, at least before he is cast out of Isengard), Gandalf (outwardly unappealing, but inwardly perhaps the most "good" character of them all), Boromir (fair in appearance, but succumbs to evil), or Bombadil (undeniably good, but not outwardly beautiful).

Yes, the most evil characters (Sauron, Wormtongue, Shelob, the Orcs, the Sackville-Bagginses) are the ugliest. But even Sauron and Morgoth (or Melkor, before his fall) were once fair; in both their cases, the outward ugliness came about as a result of their inward evil. And yes, most of the fairest characters are among the most good, especially among the women -- Arwen, Galadriel, Eowyn, Goldberry. But look at Galadriel's description of what she would become if she took the One Ring:

"In place of the Dark Lord you will set up a Queen. And I shall not be dark, but beautiful and terrible as the Morning and the Night! Fair as the Sea and the Sun and the Snow upon the Mountain! Dreadful as the Storm and the Lightning! Stronger than the foundations of the earth. All shall love me and despair!"

"Beautiful and terrible" -- hardly a combination possible if outward beauty = inward goodness.

Posted by Doug | December 11, 2007 12:19 AM

Re: Tolkien certainly intended his work to be fully consistent with orthodox Catholicism.

Tolkien departed from Catholicism (and western Christianity in general) in one significant issue: in his mythos death in inherent to humankind, not a punishment for the Fall, and indeed it is the Gift of God to mortal men.

Re: But equating beauty and goodness in the real world is contrary to Christian teaching.

That's a surprising assertion, and I think you have overstated or misstated it: as formulated you sound like a Calvinist, suspicious of anything as mundane as mere beauty. However, LOTR does not take place in the "real" world. Like an Orthodox icon it is a work of art and as such it is free to equate beauty and goodness. (Others have already noted that it does not necessarily do so)

Posted by JonF | December 11, 2007 7:16 AM

If anyone thinks Tolkien is shallow or trivial, check out The Dialog of Finrod and Andreth in Vol 9 of The History of Middle Earth series. It is an imagined conversation between an elf and a mortal in which Tolkien works out how human destiny is a gift even though we fail to see it. Aristotle would be proud.

The huge corpus of posthumously published works is all referenced in LOTR and integrated into a life long, sustained, unified fantasy of such depth, erudition, humor, and goodness that it takes a lifetime to even appreciate wht he made.

Posted by d | December 11, 2007 7:24 AM

There have been many interesting comments here, so I won’t take the time to echo the ones I agree with or to argue with the ones I don’t. But one erratum from the post:

The world-building that makes The Golden Compass so compelling and fun – the panzerbjorn and the witches, the Jules Verne-meets-Tolkien landscape

It’s panserbjørne. I can see how you’d mistake this by relying on memory alone — thinking of the German panzer brigades of World War II — but Pullman’s clever coinage (meaning “armored bears”) is colored by the phonology of Danish, rather than German.

Posted by Jason Fisher | December 11, 2007 10:10 AM

Brendan,

I don't think it's a contradiction. I think the fact that we have conscience and the ability to know right from wrong is a free gift that God gave us, a contingent fact of history. It didn't have to be so. There could be other intelligent species on which He never bestowed the gift of conscience and morality. Perhaps some of them He left to evolve by the blind and unaided forces of natural selection. Or perhaps there are intelligent beings who were created by the devil, not unlike how Tolkien's Orcs were created by Sauron. Presumably they would be irredeemably evil.

I suppose this is what I get for getting into an argument with a Tolkien aficionado...:)

Posted by Hector | December 11, 2007 11:45 AM

I agree with those who argue that Tolkein was far more profound and intricate than he is being given credit for by Pullman.
The fact that [*spoiler alert*] it was Gollum who eventually destroys the ring shows the complicated nature of good and evil. I actually think in this regard the movie was as successful as the book, if not more so: Gollum is transformed by his addiction (to power) into a monstrous wretch, and yet retains an innate goodness that still can show itself. When he finally gives himself over to evil (that is by taking the Ring from Frodo by force), he inadvertently brings about the downfall of evil because he destroys the Ring (and Sauron) in the process.
The corruption of power is a very deep subject which Tolkein handles with tremendous skill.

Posted by anon tolkein fan | December 11, 2007 4:58 PM

For those who would say that there is nothing Christian about Tolkein's trilogy, he once described the "Secret Fire" in Gandalf's confrontation with the Balrog as symbolic of the Holy Spirit.
Christ is made visible by Frodo, Gandalf and Aragorn. They each represent different aspects of Christ's ministry: priest, prophet and king.

Posted by iaib | December 11, 2007 5:04 PM

The problem is that the corruption of power, in this sense, isn't a problem I'm certain Pullman believes in. You use power to overthrow Authority and crush the bad people, duh.

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | December 11, 2007 5:11 PM

From a Catholic perspective (I'm not a Catholic, btw) one could see Minas Tirith as symbolic of Constantinople, and see the fall of Denethor as symbolic of the fate of the Eastern Emperors, who (probably in Tolkien's view) fell in part because they stubbornly persisted in schism and refused to acknowledge the lawful authority of the only person who could help them, the Pope. (Presumably here being represented by Gandalf & Aragorn).

Posted by Hector | December 11, 2007 5:58 PM

Perhaps Tolkien's problem was that he made the supposed Christian overtones so subtle that few people were perceptive enough to pick up on them. I knew that Tolkien was a Catholic, before I read the books, but I never perceived anything particularly Christian about them; I guess I simply couldn't pick up the allegory. (Good thing i wasn't a literature major!)

Posted by Tolkien | December 11, 2007 6:01 PM

Tolkien explicitly explains how his Christianity informs his understanding of stories. He coined the term eucatastrophe to describe it, and you can read about it in "On Fairy Stories," which is sort of his aesthetic manifesto. The eucatastrophe is the turn of events from tragic to hopeful. Tolkien proposed that this theme is so powerful because we live within a true myth in which the whole Christ event (birth/death/resurrection) was/is/shall be the eucatastrophe. Myths and fairy stories speak to us deeply because in this sense they are true.

Incidently this connection between the aesthetic yearning for eucatastrophe and the Christian hope in the Messsiah is precisely the line of reasoning that Tolkien used to explain Christianity to C. S. Lewis, who became a Christian because of Tolkien's witness and unique vision of theology. Don't take my word for it, read all about it in Lewis' autobiography "Surprised By Joy" or Humphrey Carpenter's excellent authorized biographies of Lewis, Tolkien, and The Inklings. The exact content and date of Lewis' conversations with Tolkien and subsequent conversion are well documented.

Thus, not only did Tolkien tackle the deep questions, he was so deep that he converted C. S. Lewis (or as we Christians would prefer to say, God used Tolkien's witness to convert C. S. Lewis), who wnet on to become arguably one of the most influential Christians ever.

These guys were old school scholars, who left nothing out of place, nothing unexplained. It is all detailed in their own words. Readit and weep, Pullman and Pullmanites!

Might I also encourage intelligent and curious persons to read C. S. Lewis' introduction to the Literature of the 16th Century. He read every single published work form that century and wrote the definitive volume on the subject. His introcudtion is a stunningly brilliant charge through the corpus which integrates his vast readership from all time periods. His penetrating and lucid reasoning is matched only by his razor sharp satire, brazen Christian witness, and evident jocularity. I cannot do him justice.

Anyone who wants to convince me that Tolkien was trivial must explain how he could have a great scholar and influential Christian teacher such as Lewis eagerly supporting and even (one could argue without blandishment) imitating his creative fiction.

Posted by d | December 11, 2007 6:41 PM

anon_fan has it right. Tolkien was explicit in one of his published Letters: No one could have resisted the Ring in the end. Only Frodo could have gotten as far as he did, but he failed at the end. It took the intervention of Grace to destroy the Ring. That the corrupt Gollum was Grace's instrument is a neat turn both dramatically and theologically.

Speaking of the Letters, all Tolkien fans should read them. The man that they reveal was intelligent, learned, courteous, cranky, reactionary, and humane, all to a very high degree. It is a treat to get to know him.

(And I have to add: There can be no possible doubt where he would have stood on waterboarding.)

Posted by roac | December 11, 2007 6:42 PM

I guess I simply couldn't pick up the allegory

Well, unless he messed up (which he sort of did?) it isn't allegory. Tolkien detested allegory, and thought Lewis indulged in it far far too much.

Tolkien's letter are indeed fascinating reading. A reactionary anarchist monarchist, I'd call him, and he was as anti-American (in a good way, mostly) as he was anti-Soviet. Oh, how he loathed Disney (I like Disney in some ways, but Tolkien's particular loathings are not bad ways to loathe).

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | December 11, 2007 7:07 PM

Re: From a Catholic perspective (I'm not a Catholic, btw) one could see Minas Tirith as symbolic of Constantinople, and see the fall of Denethor as symbolic of the fate of the Eastern Emperors, who (probably in Tolkien's view) fell in part because they stubbornly persisted in schism and refused to acknowledge the lawful authority of the only person who could help them, the Pope.

I think that's a stretch, since the Stewards are emphatically not royal: the line of kings in Gondor failed long before LOTR begins. Moreover the line of the Stewards survives quite handily in Faramir, who is a pretty decent sort. Nor is there anything "schismatic" about Gondor: it was genuinely descended from the old Numenorean culture as much as Aragorn's hidden northern people were. Indeed, Aragorn's claims aren't just from his northern lineage, since the two royal lines not only go back to the same ancestor, but also intermarried in their heyday, so Aragorn was descended from the Gondorean kings directly too. Finally, Aragorn is in no sense a pope. Any religious authority role in LOTR belongs to Gandalf.

Posted by JonF | December 11, 2007 9:08 PM

This is Atlas Shrugged in a nutshell: A style of literature-as-polemic that seeks to persuade the reader of its argument by associating those characters who share the author’s point of view with every possible virtue, and those who don’t with every possible vice. The result is a self-contained world – where Christians are all Nazis, say, or successful capitalists are all saints and geniuses

That's not a very good description of Atlas Shrugged. Sure there's polemic in there but the bad guys are smart, handsome, driven, clever, usually well-intentioned and occasionally redeemable. The very first character we meet is good without being extraordinary. Our protagonists even spend the first two thirds of the book fighting against the hero rather than the author's preferred enemies.

Plus, a terribly long speech.

Posted by Brian | December 11, 2007 9:47 PM

"I’m favorably inclined to Lewis’ polemical intentions, but even I can see that they sometimes step on the toes of his storytelling."

Sometimes? Even when I was an untroubled believer, I found them to be a treacly, mistimed mess. LoTR is a far far better story in virtually every regard, including a far richer and deeper world. The oft-overlooked Prydain books are likewise vastly superior to Narnia (and they have no axe to grind either way). Tolkien saw the themes and ideas in his book as being naturally Christian, but they are so only in the sense that Christianity has many values that can be appreciated by all: his only mistake is in thinking that they are inherently Christian, and this is not a mistake that hurts or impacts the story in any way.

As for Lewis... now as a non-believer, I can't for the life of me understand why people think even Lewis' non-fiction is good. His theological arguments are terrible: the sort of things you can only take seriously if you just nod along the whole way through instead of taking a second to think about any of it.

Posted by Bad | December 11, 2007 11:34 PM

JonF,

well, right, Gandalf would presumably represent the Pope. Aragorn would represent the Holy Roman Emperor, I suppose. Sauron obviously represents the Turks. I wonder who the Elves and Dwarves represnt?

Posted by Hector | December 11, 2007 11:45 PM

Bad writes: "Even when I was an untroubled believer, I found them to be a treacly, mistimed mess. LoTR is a far far better story in virtually every regard, including a far richer and deeper world. The oft-overlooked Prydain books are likewise vastly superior to Narnia (and they have no axe to grind either way)."

Hell yes. I'd say the same about Evangeline Walton's Mabinogion books, or LeGuin's Earthsea, and I didn't even like Earthsea all that much. I just can't believe that the Narnia books have a real adult audience.

"As for Lewis... now as a non-believer, I can't for the life of me understand why people think even Lewis' non-fiction is good. His theological arguments are terrible: the sort of things you can only take seriously if you just nod along the whole way through instead of taking a second to think about any of it."

Lewis spawned Lee Strobel's vomitous "Case For Christ." That's really all you need to know.

Comparisons between Tolkien and Lewis have always annoyed me. It's like comparing Bill Russell to Muggsy Bogues.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | December 11, 2007 11:53 PM

I dare anyone in this debate to actually read all the books being kicked around.

After you read Pullman's trilogy, ask: what is the significance of Lyra and Will's choice to do what the angel tells them is right and necessary?

For those who harp on excess Calvinism, read the Golden Compass and discover that it is Calvin himself who dominates the Magisterium in Lyra's world.

What is the metaphysics of the trilogy? "atheism" won't do. That's a narrowly defined label that might not even apply (for instance, HDM is full of supernatural orders, as Paradise Lost is.) The metaphysics of HDM boils down to: one life is all you have. And it's good and needs no external justification for being lived. Death is not something to be feared. In other words, to ask "what is the purpose of life" is a meaningless question. However, Pullman is no moral innovator. His moral advice consists of "be kind and tell the truth", and to get more than that you have to analyze the heroic examples of his characters. Which is the value of the story anyway.

As for the complaints about Ayn Rand. Pullman is no Ayn Rand; I just pointed out that aside from a this-worldly view he offers no moral innovation. For a logical system of virtue and vice, Ayn Rand is the real deal.

To Brian, who strives to deliver the "feet of clay" Douthat expects, you utterly miss the point. There are no "realistic" characters in Ayn Rand because all of them are variations on a theme, and that doesn't mean mixing "shades of grey". For instance, in Atlas Shrugged, John Galt, Francisco d'Anconia, Ragnar Danneskjold, and Hugh Akston form a group who consistently apply a philosophy of reason in dealing with the world, but in ways formed by their background and personality. Meanwhile, Dagny Taggart and Hank Rearden are heroic because they also use their minds; but they suffer from epistemological blunders or can't see the consequences of their actions, and allow evil to take advantage of them. All the rest of the supporting cast of "good guys" each have an epistemological problem to solve (some don't succeed.) The antagonists are their reverse variations.

If you happen to think building a railroad is not a moral act, then you will have all sorts of problems reading Atlas Shrugged; and if you suppose the idea that work is what makes man noble, can't survive "contact with reality", you will not enjoy the book; you will probably not enjoy your career either.

The Fountainhead is an easier book to understand, because it deals with a more limited theme and cast of characters, but the same pattern is there: the characters are variations on the theme. Supporting protagonists have an epistemological problem (some misunderstanding of the theme) and work out the answer by the end.

Posted by Erik Olson | December 11, 2007 11:59 PM

Moe,

No, there are lots of adults who reread Lewis' child fiction. Part of it, I suppose, is a desire to recapture the innocence of childhood. He captures very well what it felt like to be a child learning about the nature of morality and the universe from a child's perspective. Not that that's a bad thing. After all, Jesus said, 'Whosoever does not receive the Kingdom of Heaven like a little child shall never enter therein." He also does a good job of creating a medieval worldview. Which for any of us who more than occasionally feel that modern life has lost its savor, and feel a longing for bygone centuries, is quite a positive thing.

He also, btw, wrote some adult spiritual fiction, 'That Hideous Strength' among them. You should check it out. I disagree with many of his views (on birth control, on the ideal role of the State, and other things) but the man could write one hell of a good story. He was a wonderful writer, not a prophet. And in 'That Hideous Strength' in particular he does an interesting thing of grafting Greek mythology onto Christianity.

You should check out Tolkien's friend Charles Williams too....has anyone hear read Charles Williams?.....kind of like C.S. Lewis meets Graham Greene. spiritual fiction written in the hard-boiled, black-humor British style.

Posted by Hector | December 12, 2007 12:10 AM

Ayn Rand might propose a system of virtue and vice, but what she regards as virtues I regard as vices, and vice versa.

The idea that work is the way that man expresses his nature is, I would think, more of a Marxian idea than a libertarian one. (In its truest form, like most other true moral principle, it can be found in the New Testament; in this regard Marx and other socialists borrowed their ideas about work from the gospel, as conservatives borrowed their ideas about order and liberals borrowed their ideas about freedom). After all, the libertarians are those who degrade real 'work' by comparing it to the 'work' of the idle rich.

I believe, as Levin says about railroad financiers in "Anna Karenina"*, that there are only two legitimate kinds of work, the work of the scholar and the work of the manual laborer, and that anyone who does neither, who lives off property, investment, inheritance, or returns on capital is ultimately commiting the same moral fault as a medieval usurer. That doesn't mean they are a 'bad person', since we are all sinners, but it does mean that our entire economic system needs to be changed so that we can as far as possible suppress and limit what is the moral equivalent of usury. This is mostly why I consider myself a socialist.

Posted by Hector | December 12, 2007 12:19 AM

Hector writes: "No, there are lots of adults who reread Lewis' child fiction. Part of it, I suppose, is a desire to recapture the innocence of childhood. He captures very well what it felt like to be a child learning about the nature of morality and the universe from a child's perspective. Not that that's a bad thing. After all, Jesus said, 'Whosoever does not receive the Kingdom of Heaven like a little child shall never enter therein." He also does a good job of creating a medieval worldview. Which for any of us who more than occasionally feel that modern life has lost its savor, and feel a longing for bygone centuries, is quite a positive thing."

I'll pass on the medieval worldview, Hec. You can have it. I would have been the sort of serf who would, sooner or later, have caved in the head of one noble or another. I think those were the best kind of serfs.

I do think you're right about why adults read Lewis's Narnia series, though. I just think he was aiming at half-bright children, and I'm just not interested. It may just be because I skipped that "intermediate" reading level and went right on to "adult" reading when I was a kid.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | December 12, 2007 1:37 AM

oh, no, Moe. I know some very smart people, graduate students at some of the country's best universities, in fields like zoology, physics, and linguistics, who still reread the Lewis series. He was aiming at children, and adults, who believe in or attracted to a certain worldview. If you arent attracted to that worldview, then you won't like the books.

And obviously, I'm not interested in resurrecting the medieval social structure, although I'm not sure that the social inequality then was much worse than it is today. i agree with you about the serfs. i just think that we lost the baby with the bathwater when we 'got rid of' the medieval worldview.

Posted by Hector | December 12, 2007 10:46 AM

I knew from experience that when I saw JonF say this:

From a Catholic perspective (I'm not a Catholic, btw) one could see Minas Tirith as symbolic of Constantinople

that he would draw a response like this:

well, right, Gandalf would presumably represent the Pope. Aragorn would represent the Holy Roman Emperor, I suppose. Sauron obviously represents the Turks

Many Tolkien fans, having taken note of the author's professed dislike for allegory (that is, a one-to-one mapping of some portion of the real world onto an invented one) react violently to the slightest suggestion that any aspect of
Tolkien's experience had any influence on the created universe of LotR.

Which is preposterous. The raw materials of any artist's creation are entirely derived from what that artist has seen, heard, read about, and felt.

In fact, the analogy between the historical position of Byzantium and the historical position of Gondor under the Stewards -- consciously preserving the remnants of a greater civilization -- is one that Tolkien explicitly acknowledges somewhere in Letters.

And it seems likely that the accounts of the final siege of Constantinople in 1453 had their influence on the atmosphere of the siege of Gondor. Though a closer historical analogy is the Ottoman siege of Vienna in 1683. Which was lifted by a surprise attack by a calvary force led by the Polish king Jan Sobieski. Who rejected practical concerns to fulfill the promise he had made to the Hapsburg Emperor. And who achieved surprise through the failure of the Ottoman general Kara Mustafa to set up a blocking force against relief from the north. All of which may perfectly well be concidence. And yes, the Ottoman Empire IS in my view the clear historical antecednt of Mordor.

And by the way, the Byzantime Emperor and the Holy Roman Emperor were two different people residing in different places.

Posted by roac | December 12, 2007 11:20 AM

roac,

yes i know that the two empires were different, and in fact rivals of each other for the claim of inheritors of the Roman Empire. Presumably Denethor represents the Eastern (Byzantine) Emperor, and Aragorn represents the Holy Roman Emperor. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

Posted by Hector | December 12, 2007 11:32 AM

that there are only two legitimate kinds of work, the work of the scholar and the work of the manual laborer

Wow. No engineers? No organization or management of any sort? No proofreaders or programmers or secretaries? Hector, come on, that's either an exaggeration or a confession of being fare more loopy and unrealistic, and uncharitable to various kinds of work than Chesterton on his most guild-intoxicated day.

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | December 12, 2007 12:51 PM

Erik- When people say things like

"one life is all you have. And it's good and needs no external justification for being lived. Death is not something to be feared. In other words, to ask "what is the purpose of life" is a meaningless question."

I wonder how you come up with such Marvelous Pronouncements of Truth. Who says there is only one life, and can you prove that to me? How do you know when justification is or is not needed? Why not fear death? It is not eactly lovely, afterall. I heard a lady who works with Hospice say that dying is hard work. What should we fear, and on what authority do you make such judgemnents? If life's meaning is not meaningful to you, then how is anything meaningful? Why, especially in light of your dogmatic insistence that we ought not question life as a whole? You provide no epistemological basis for sweeping generalizations and beliefs. Apparently you rely far more on faith than most thoughtful theists. My concern is not with the depth of your doubt but with its shallowness. In order to maintain your intellectual integrity you must apply the same skepticism that you use against theism to your unbelief.

ayn raynd was morally bankrupt and hypocritical, nobody worth following- read up on the affair she had with her student whom she controlled financially. I do think that The Fountainhead is a first rate work of literature, but I prefer the little science fiction novel (can't recall the name) because it makes her point more efficiently and it was turned into a kickass rock album (called 2112) by Rush. Puerile, yes, but so is Raynd's philosophy. What fun, I say- thow down those mean stodgidy Establishment people! Rock on in freedom! Just be careful that we never become the establishment....

dear bad,
Lewis' arguments are brilliant. You mistake clarity for simplicity. His logic is layered and elegant. There are reasons for his reasons for his reasons. I would also claim that he is not merely a syllogism chopper. He also writes about his own spiritual journey with a romantic flare tempered by honesty which is quite frank and personally transparent. For instance, in "A Grief Observed" he deals with what it means to lose a spouse after lecturing others on the basics of Christian belief.

We have moved beyond Lewis into a post modern era, so you have to judge him based on his times and his audience. Consider that Mere Chrsitainity was originally a series of radio talks for the general public in post-war Britain. If you want the full blast of Lewis' sophistocation, try his scholarly non-fiction (see my note Dec 11).

roac and Hector,

LOTR may reflect some aspects of Byzantine history, but it does not represent Byzantine history. There is a big difference. LOTR is not about Byzantium. On the other hand, the more you know about Byzantium and the more you know about Gondor, the more parallels you are likely to see. This will increase your pleasure and generate all sorts of beneficial insights. I recommend rereading LOTR at least once every 2 or 3 years, and in between readings, checking out the many well known critical works.

Posted by d | December 12, 2007 1:30 PM

Bad-
The Prydain books rock! I could not agree more! But the author does have a point of view and an agenda. He is (was?) an existentialist scholar (published translations of Sartre) and intentionally designed his world to show how characters make choices that define who they become. If you understand existentialism it is all over the place in Prydain, and quite preachy in the series. His brand of existentialism is quite tender and compassionate. I think Lloyd Alexander must be (must have been?) a wonderful person to know. His use of material from the welsh Mabinogion was very tastefully and skillfully done, and it gives a great texture to the books' backdrop and setting.

The Evangeline Walton Mabinogion is not nearly as entertaining as the Mabinogion itself. The original text (I mean a translation) is highly recommended for fantasy fans. Chaucer liked it too.

Posted by d | December 12, 2007 1:55 PM

d- Are you sure you aren't confusing the Prydain books with some other series? Lloyd Alexander, to my knowledge, never came within a nautical mile of existential scholarship or translations of Sartre.

They're terrific books, all the same. I saw Alexander give a talk about Welsh mythology once, and he was very charming and engaging.

Posted by Random Passerby | December 12, 2007 2:28 PM

He definitely did translations of existentialists, including Sartre. I am vaguely of the impression somewhere that he was some sort of Christian, also, though the books certainly aren't very preachy about anything but human decency.

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | December 12, 2007 2:34 PM

Marquis, here is the passage from "Anna Karenina" that I was referencing. Of course it was an exaggeration, we need engineers and programmers and secretaries, etc. I don't literally believe in 'only scholars and manual laborers are honorable' etc. but I do think that like Tolstoy says below, there is something wrong with a society in which some people can make a living without actually 'working'- whether they be speculators, investors, inherited wealthy, movie actresses or welfare queens. Tolstoy says it better than I can, below (with regard to the kind of railroad tycoon that I assume that poster above was referencing)

‘Oh, by what work? Do you call it work to get hold of concessions and speculate with them?’
‘Of course it’s work. Work in this sense, that if it were not for him and others like him, there would have been no railways.’
‘But that’s not work, like the work of a peasant or a learned profession.’
‘Granted, but it’s work in the sense that his activity produces a result—the railways. But of course you think the railways useless.’
‘No, that’s another question; I am prepared to admit that they’re useful. But all profit that is out of proportion to the labour expended is dishonest.’
‘But who is to define what is proportionate?’
‘Making profit by dishonest means, by trickery,’ said Levin, conscious that he could not draw a distinct line between honesty and dishonesty. ‘Such as banking, for instance,’ he went on. ‘It’s an evil—the amassing of huge fortunes without labour, just the same thing as with the spirit of monopolies, it’s only the form that’s changed. Le roi est mort, vive le roi! No sooner were the spirit monopolies abolished than the railways came up, and banking companies; that, too, is profit without work.’

Posted by Hector | December 12, 2007 3:02 PM

d just lost the thread with this one: "Who says there is only one life, and can you prove that to me?"

The scientific method asserts that the mind is lodged in electrical impulses in the brain. Since no-one is taking backups of the brain, there is only one life. And there is no need to tailor a proof especially for d; d is like the preacher who offers a $1 million reward for anyone who can convince him of the Moon landings. In sum, d is a fool who wouldn't believe something he doesn't like even if, and more likely especially if, it were adequately proven to his (many) betters.

I'm leaving aside whether Lewis's arguments had merit. It's enough to point out that d isn't the one to convince anyone of them.

Posted by David Ross | December 12, 2007 3:41 PM

The scientific method asserts that the mind is lodged in electrical impulses in the brain

Er, no, it damn well doesn't. The "scientific method" is 1) mostly a quiet fellow, not given to assertions of any sort and 2) is an epistemological method of great value in investigating certain kinds of questions, but which makes no metaphysical pronouncements whatsoever (it relies on semi-metaphysical assumptions about induction, causality, and the intelligibility of an ordered reality, and probably depends on the "unreasonable" effectiveness of mathematical modeling to actualy get anything done, but it doesn't assert any of these things).

Really, I know the scientific method. I work with him, sometimes. Nice chap, who keeps mum about his view on where the mind lodges (probably not the pancreas or the pituitary, or Des Moines, but that's about as much as I can guess from his cagey statements).

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | December 12, 2007 4:24 PM

Hector,

I'm far from a raging capitalist (I think the cultural destruction of the 20th century can be blamed on materialist good-times good-profits assumptions as much as Raging Theory and 'Liberation'), but yeah -- I part ways with you. I'm not happy with a lot of what goes on in the financial world, I'm Chestertonian and 'crunchy', but I think banking isn't inherently usury or evil, or failing to provide a service.

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | December 12, 2007 4:31 PM

although I'm sympathetic to the themes of the Narnia books, I generally agree with folks that I'm not convinced that the books really work as fiction.

I haven't read His Dark Materials, and was actually looking forward to doing so until I saw Pullman's description of Tolkien as "trivial." That's quite silly, in my opinion. Tolkien's books cover all the big themes and he's simply in a different league from every other fantasy writer I've ever read. I am a fan of Alexander's Prydain books, which I think are some of the best of the rest.

I hadn't heard that Alexander was any type of Christian, but he did indeed make his living as a translator of Satre and other existentialists before he started selling his fiction. There are some great characters in the books, to be sure. I suspect his worldview goes nicely with some of the Eastern themes he explores in the Remarkable Journey of Prince Jen, and certainly existentialism features very significantly, although an extremely moralistic brand.

Posted by hugo | December 12, 2007 6:08 PM

re: In fact, the analogy between the historical position of Byzantium and the historical position of Gondor under the Stewards -- consciously preserving the remnants of a greater civilization -- is one that Tolkien explicitly acknowledges somewhere in Letters.

Actually this is true, the issue I had with Hector's interpretation is that Gondor was in no sense "apostate". There wasn't some Pope or True Church out there that Gondor has rejected. In the back story there were originally two kingdoms: the Northern one was destroyed by war, but its line of kings survived, in secret protected by the Elves and known only to a few like Gandalf. The Southern kingdom, Gondor, kept its kingdom, but lost its kings (I think the line died out in a plague). So you have a king without a kingdom and a kingdom without a king: two halves that become whole, but only when the time is ripe for it. Denethor the last Steward was a jerk I suppose, but the story makes it clear he became that way by matching wills with Sauron in the Seeing Stone he had, and so gradually fell into despair.

Re: Presumably Denethor represents the Eastern (Byzantine) Emperor, and Aragorn represents the Holy Roman Emperor.

Hector, that doesn't really work, because Denethor was not an emperor (and never claimed to be) and in our hsitory the HRE was something of a counterfeit: a rather fraudulent (and incompetent) refounding of Rome four centuries and a half after it went belly up. Aragorn however was the real thing, rather as if the last heir of Julius Caesar were found hiding out among the Lapps and Finns centuries after Rome fell.

Posted by JonF | December 12, 2007 8:40 PM

I wonder who the Elves and Dwarves represnt?

"I do think of the 'Dwarves' like Jews: at once native and alien in their habitations, speaking the languages of the country, but with an accent due to their own private tongue..." --- JRR Tolkien, Letters #176 (8 December 1955)

In related news, Thrain sat shiva when he heard Thror had been murdered.

Posted by Joseph Hertzlinger | December 13, 2007 6:37 PM

Well, "d", the socialist, one letter away from no name, you mistook my condensation of Phil Pullman's metaphysical lesson for *my view* and called me shallow for not proving it to you. My personal views are based on observation and experience and you are welcome to your own.

Going back to the original topic, two authors slugging it out in Douthat's brain over who can put the most moral judgments in their character's mouths:

It's Douthat's complaint that the "world building" diminishes in the next two books. Well, for one thing, the characters leave the world!!! They spend much of the second novel in *ours* and in a second world, Ci'gazze, which is quite desolate. And in the third, they spend much time in the underworld, but accompanied by the Angels, Gallivespians and their creatures, and Harpies. Not to mention the wheel-world. The Magisterium gets more time and the themes of the trilogy are finally expounded.

Which is what gets Douthat's goat. To complain that characters in a novel speak its major themes, is wrong and anti-literature. Pullman didn't set out to do less "moralizing" than Lewis. Either say that the plot and characters didn't illustrate those themes, or say that despite the story on offer you just don't agree. I suppose Douthat asserts the first ("didactic"), but he would have you believe the world-building of the last two novels is not there, or boring.

Here's another thought: read the original interiew from which the Tolkien jab was excerpted. There's much more than this one cheap shot. The parallel to Roald Dahl is now public knowledge. I for one would have liked the interviewer to ask more from Pullman about that Tolkien jab, but there isn't any. No wonder it's generated so much debate. (I wonder if he has read Tom Shippey.)

Finally, I guess the circle is complete. Lewis thought Tolkien's verse poor, and Tolkien thought Narnia was sloppily written. Who's next?

Posted by Erik Olson | December 13, 2007 10:42 PM

eric- i apologize if my experession of my views in any way cast aspersions on your viewss. You are clearly niot a shallow person. When i get past the frustration I have a genuone curiosity about how people see truth, and this is what the pullman vs. tolkien debate is about. we are either validated or violated by what we see in these wonderful stories. how can we learn from each other? by asking real questions without descening into Punch-and-Judy style debate.

Posted by d | December 14, 2007 6:09 AM

Finally, I guess the circle is complete. Lewis thought Tolkien's verse poor, and Tolkien thought Narnia was sloppily written. Who's next?

Both of them were right, of course. Most of Tolkien's verse is beyond poor (although he does much better in the alliterative meter)

"Sloppy" is an acceptable formulation of Tolkien's objection to Narnia, but I think "undisciplined" is better. Creators of alternative worlds are extremely vulnerable to the temptation to throw whatever they fancy into the mix, to the detriment of logic and coherence. As Tolkien put it, "Father Christmas, oh come ON!" Or words to that effect. Most of them put up very little resistance. Tolkien himself was not completely sinless. I haven't read Pullman but I have my suspicions.

Posted by roac | December 14, 2007 9:51 AM

roac- this is just for fun not a debater point- Tolkien made refernce in The Hobbit to the Dwarves of the Lonely Mountain making the best toys... sound like any other tribe of northern dwelling wee folk we know?

Of course any fantasy novel compared to Tolkien is relatively sloppy. He went to great lengths to make sure the moon was described as being in the correct phase. He created etymolygies for fake names. Even if you do not study his works enough to notice these sorts of things, it adds to the total sense of reality. Much like the amazing props and costumes in the LOTR movies make it more real even when they are only on camera for a milisecond or in some cases (like Gandalf's Numenorean underwear) never at all.

Maybe a helpful way to think about Lewis, Tolkien, Pullman, or any fantasy is as a typology (probably unintended) of personality. Then to the extent that it is true that characters are fixed morally (good hobbits, bad orcs, greedy dwarves, grumpy wizards, cheerful elves, -that sort of thing), then we understand that they are all analogs of one consciousness. The Fellowship if taken together probably is a good sketch of Tolkien's personality- 2 parts human, 4 parts hobbit, one part (each) elf, dwarf and wizard. Tolkien did say that the ring functions as externalized evil. In his brilliant landmark essay, "Beowulf: the Monsters and the Critics" he expounds this theory- and I paraphrase liberally- the fairy tale world is a microcsom of the spiritual development of an individual. The hero faces monsters, or else he is no hero at all. The Greek tragedy and the modern psychological novel have heroes with internal ethical conflicts, but the faerie hero's conflicts are externalized. That's the way the genre works. Instead of saying that he faces his inner demons metaphorically, a demon pops out of a crack in Khazad Dum and he faces him on a narrow bridge over a bottomless pit. The high style, "historic" setting, and archetypal characters make all the difference between a merely violent action scene or a maudlin pubescent bit of fluff and an ennobling portrayal of virtue.

Which bring us back to HDM. Pullman's protagonist is a brat who incites street riots, runs with gangs, and steals a boat in a random racial hate crime against a poor gypsy family whose livlihood she recklessly endangers. She is filthy, disobedient, and she takes foolish risks like climbing out on the roof tiles. She's an anti-heroine. Ok so let's play along and sympathize with the little devil. Fine. There are lot's of rascally heroes who run around on roof tiles and disrespect the property of racial minorities. It's all just in fun, right?

My biggest problem with Pullman isn't just that- it is the use of sexuality as a means of personal power in a children's story. The bad guys pet the kids' daemons, but the series encourages the kids to explore (daemon) petting too. I am just not OK with that....

Posted by d | December 14, 2007 6:26 PM

Now you're talking, d.

You left out one detail. Lyra is the gang's natural leader. Oh, and she didn't just endanger some random family: she picked on the one which was there to protect her. In the novel there is no harm done. The lesson is in the irony. If Lyra had not commandeered the gypsy's houseboat, the scene where she meets gypsy Lord Faa would have lost its humor. I believe what Pullman is showing here is something called "grace".

If you're not old enough to remember those days when Lyra's behavior was considered *normal* for kids, I suggest a book like The Education of Henry Adams, for one American example. I'm aware there are plenty of British "school days" stories.

Wait til you get to Book 2. Will murders someone in the first act.

As for the metaphor of daemons touching each other or adults touching other daemons. It's a particularly good metaphor. With regard to what you just said about externalization, you should see that touching daemons is a metaphor for touching another's soul, and a lesson on privacy (invasion of privacy), intimacy, and undoubtedly sexuality.

Are you saying that you think this is not a true metaphor, or are opposed to discussing these subjects even in a metaphorical non-graphic way, in a trilogy whose theme is coming of age? (and of course, a rewrite of the tempting of Eve.) To avoid these topics would be ridiculous.

Pullman definitely has a beef with Lewis over the portrayal of Susan growing up and "falling away".

Posted by Erik Olson | December 16, 2007 12:18 PM

I believe that most people, for I have not found many who can, see the parallels between Tolkien's Middle-earth history and the Bible. That is why Pullman did not try to criticize Tolkien's Middle-earth history, and because he himself does not understand them. By the way, my site is far from being completed.

Posted by Creator of Hobbits and Wizards.com | December 29, 2007 3:09 PM

I believe that most people, for I have not found many who can, see the parallels between Tolkien's Middle-earth history and the Bible. That is why Pullman did not try to criticize Tolkien's Middle-earth history, and because he himself does not understand them. By the way, my site is far from being completed.

Posted by Creator of Hobbits and Wizards.com | December 29, 2007 3:09 PM