Lewis vs Tolkien vs Pullman: Death Match in the Cage!

[GrayMouser]

Mods, I suppose this could just as easily fit in the Tolkien sub-forum.

Pullman on Tolkien:
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”

http://www.moreintelligentlife.com/node/697









As for Narnia - I've expressed my detestation for that series on several occasions and at length, so I won't say very much about it here, except to note something that some commentators miss when lumping Lewis and Tolkien together, which is this: that 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. Narnia, on the other hand, is the work of a Protestant - and an Ulster Protestant at that, for whom the individual interaction with the Bible and with God was a matter of daily struggle and endless moral questioning. That's the Protestant tradition. So in Narnia the big questions are urgent and compelling and vital: is there a God? Who is it? How can I recognise him? What must I do to be good? I profoundly disagree with the answers that Lewis offers - in fact, as I say, I detest them - but Narnia is a work of serious religious engagement in a way that TLOTR could never be.

BTW, got both of these quotes originally from here:

http://maryvictrix.wordpress.com/2008/01/25/pullman-trivializing-tolkien/

[inked]

Pullman as the referee, huh? Or are his views up to a fight?:evil:

[The Gaffer]

Groovy quotes, GM.

I would broadly agree, I think, though only if you see the books as moral explorations. LOTR isn't, as he says, though you could argue that it's trivial to even consider it in this way. And I think he misses the way in which Sam and Frodo develop throughout the book, which is about putting morals into action.

[Earniel]

Hm, while Pullman's trilogy was okay, I hardly think it has enough 'staying power' for it to be set as rival to Tolkien's and Lewis' work, just as I'm inclined to consider Pullman as author a lightweight too, compared to the others.

Tolkien and Lewis were also more subtle in working religious themes in their work. What I remember mostly of the Golden Compass trilogy was that the Church was the big bad. I don't quite recall noticing any other moral theme of importance.

In short: IMO Tolkien and Lewis would finish Pullman off just in time for tea and crumpets. ;)

[The Telcontarion]

Hm, while Pullman's trilogy was okay, I hardly think it has enough 'staying power' for it to be set as rival to Tolkien's and Lewis' work, just as I'm inclined to consider Pullman as author a lightweight too, compared to the others.

Tolkien and Lewis were also more subtle in working religious themes in their work. What I remember mostly of the Golden Compass trilogy was that the Church was the big bad. I don't quite recall noticing any other moral theme of importance.

In short: IMO Tolkien and Lewis would finish Pullman off just in time for tea and crumpets. ;)

I say ditto to that...

[The Telcontarion]

Well, Phillip Pullman thinks there are Christian influences in Tolkien's work! See here: http://entmoot.com/showthread.php?t=15002

Of course, PP thinks that's a reason to discredit Tollers! But I'd bet PP would protest anyone discounting his work because it was written by an atheist who thought his world view explained everything as PP discounts Tolkien's Roman Catholicism.

And Tolkien's account of the Creation is certainly Hebraically influenced and blended with Norse and other mythologies in addition to its Christian content - to start at the beginning, as it were.

I profoundly disagree with this dude about JRRT. If anyone is inconsequential it would be him, why is he even mentioned in the same sentence with these guys.


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.

Hmmmm, he must have been reading another LOTR. What of Boromirs struggles with what is right and what is wrong, Galadriels history leading up to her refusing the one ring, Denethor, Theoden and even Frodo, to name a few.

Sounds like an inconsequential author griping at his betters.

[hectorberlioz]

Hmmmm, he must have been reading another LOTR. What of Boromirs struggles with what is right and what is wrong, Galadriels history leading up to her refusing the one ring, Denethor, Theoden and even Frodo, to name a few.

Yes, and Faramir who wanted to take the ring!

[Coffeehouse]

Calling The Lord of the Rings as trivial is silly:rolleyes: Of course Tolkien is influenced by Christianity, he was after all a Christian and his life and views of the world will ultimately colour such a massive piece of writing that devises an entire story of Creation, age-spans of many thousands of years and a fight between the good and the evil. It's only natural.

But what Tolkien does so brilliantly, which is anything but trivial (it's a work of genious) is write a story that anyone can relate to, whether she is religious or not, born in the 50s or born today.

There are some eternal conflicts of human nature (examplified through a range of races in the Lord of the Rings whom all are 'human').
There are some fundamental truths that Tolkien deals with and realities of the world like friendship, sacrifice, war, co-existence, isolation, fear, common purpose, the decay (and rebirth) of the environment and the passage of time which few have managed to combine so eloquently in one work of fiction.

I like the Lord of the Rings not only because it's a really good story;) but because Tolkien exposes the detached, grim reality that comes with the destruction of the natural world (Isengard and Mordor), and that it does not lead to peace or happiness but war and egoism. Through the lives of the Lorien-elves, the Ents and Tom Bombadil in the Old Forest we see that working with the natural world leads to harmony in contrast to an arrogant belief that one can override and use the natural world to one's own choosing.

Here's I think a Catholic, or at least Christian influence. There probably have been many persons and way of lives throughout history, here and there, that have had as a life-rule to coexist and adapt to nature, not try to work against it or violently uproot it, but Tolkien was a Christian and he may have looked in that direction as well as into the worldview of the mythologies he studied.

Although we have environmentalism today and a wider global awareness of this issue (despite it rarely being followed..), Tolkien might well have been influenced by St. Francis of Aussi, the 13th century Catholic friar that advised the protection of animals and nature as a Christian deed, or Jean Calvin, the 16th century theologian who founded Calvinism, who stated that although "nature is created for humans we must nurture it". I think it likely that such views in combination with Tolkiens love for the English forest shows an example of a Christian influence that Tolkien has universalized and personified with the likes of Tom Bombadil's non-ownership, the elves' enchanted relationship and near-worship of the forests, along with the age-old herder Ents that roam Fangorn forest:)

When Pullman argues that there is no big debate on the tough questions I think he fires in the wrong direction. When Tolkien exposes the barbaric industry that Sarumann creates in Isengard and the destruction of the green landscape that existed there he may not need to point out that it is not a good thing (we all understand that), but who doesn't realise the striking parallel to our own world of the non-stop industrialised machines whom work day and night, without pause, and who consume the natural world ever faster until it becomes unsustainable. Tolkien shows with Isengard how bad it can go, and although everyone realises Sarumann has become corrupt, the wizard himself does not view it this way. He wants order, power, wealth and he wants it quickly and it's dismayful to acknowledge that the same drive for natural resources and ever more demands on the natural world was and is the great story behind the story of the 20th century.
Pullman sees no interesting 'provocation' or discussion arise from the Lord of the Rings, I see it completely different.

[hectorberlioz]

I totally agree with CH. Especially the last paragraph.

Gotta run! (Class in 20 mins!)

[GrayMouser]

Hmmmm... was thinking more about the theological aspects of it. Tolkien claimed LoTR to be not only a Christian work, but essentially a Catholic one, a claim that, as far as I can see, is happily repeated by Catholics commentators while being studiously ignored by Protestants.

I must admit that I've never been interested enough to actually delve into the doctrinal manifestations:

" "To sheep other sheep no doubt appear different," laughed Lindir. "Or to shepherds. But Mortals have not been our study. We have other business."

Other than the obvious mariolatry of singing hymns to the Queen of Heaven, but I was interested to see Pullman making this point.

Pullman, while famously an atheist, drew his inspiration from John Milton, the great Protestant and anti-Royalist. I would have liked to hear what instances in the Narnia books he regarded as being specifically Protestant, but unfortunately the interviewer didn't follow up and I haven't been able to find any elaboration elsewhere.

Tolkien was known to have to have greatly disliked Narnia for literary reasons, but there has been some discussion of the conflict between and Lewis and him on doctrinal grounds:

On 11 November, 1964, almost a year after C.S. Lewis's death, Tolkien composed a letter to David Kolb, a Jesuit, wherein he wrote:

It is sad that 'Narnia' and all that part of C.S.L.'s work should remain outside the range of my sympathy, as much of my work was outside his. Also, I personally found Letters to Malcolm a distressing and in parts horrifying work. I began a commentary on it, but if finished it would not be publishable. (Tolkien, Letters 352)

"Letters to Malcolm and the trouble with Narnia:C.S. Lewis, J.R.R. Tolkien and their 1949 crisis."

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0OON/is_1-2_26/ai_n21130448/pg_9

This essay, by a Catholic writer, discusses some of the reasons Tolkien would have found 'Letters to Malcolm' " distressing and in parts horrifying" - basically, he sees a lot of attacks on Catholicism in it- and speculates how, in retrospect anyway, Tolkien might have seen some of this in the Narnia books.

The commentary Tolkien wrote was called "Ulsterior Motives" (get it?-presumably this was just a working title) - but for some unknown reason has yet to be published by the Tolkien estate, which seems to have found time to publish every other half-scribbled scrap of paper he ever wrote- stirring up trouble with the Lewisites bad for business?

Also interesting that Tolkien says "as much of my work was outside his."

AFAIK Lewis had nothing but enthusiastic praise for Tolkien's published works, which would only have been the Hobbit and LotR, though I've read elsewhere that he privately thought Tolkien's poetry was pretty terrible- with which I heartily agree.

[hectorberlioz]

Perhaps later in this semester I can help out in the JRRT/LOTR/Catholicism department, since my Lit. class is focusing on his work.

We've only just started, so nothing revelatory has been revealed ;).

[GrayMouser]

Perhaps later in this semester I can help out in the JRRT/LOTR/Catholicism department, since my Lit. class is focusing on his work.

We've only just started, so nothing revelatory has been revealed ;).

Aww, come on, nothing spoils a good discussion like someone who actually knows what they're talking about :)

[brownjenkins]

Tolkien realized that the most important thing about life, regardless of the big picture, is people. Lewis was a bit more obsessed with the big picture. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

Pullman is just grumpy. :D

[hectorberlioz]

And the great thing is that--despite each man's big differences with eachother--I can appreciate all three's fiction. Tolkien with his resplendant history, CSL with his heart-warming allegory, and Pullman in all his grumpy glory, to use your description BJ :p.

[inked]

Here's an interesting 1o minutes on Tolkien and words and their meanings with some reference to Lewis:

http://www.marshillaudio.org/resources/mp3/MHAJ-49-Wood.mp3

Pullman not included per se but I think he would fill the bill as postmodernity product and facilitator.

[Varnafindë]

Is there a button or a link anywhere to report spam posts?

[Earniel]

There should be a little triangle, like a traffic sign, under the name of each member that will allow you to notify the mods and bring the post under their attention. Or else there's a thread in the Feedback forum where you can alert mods to spammers as well.

Spam post and spammer deleted.

[brownjenkins]

You mean this topic, or just inked in general? ;)

[inked]

Good one, BJ!:p

[Varnafindë]

You mean this topic, or just inked in general? ;)

Now that the spam post has been removed, it looks like I was complaining about inked, doesn't it? :D

Edit:
And now that we're on a new page, you need to go back to look - and to read the newest on-topic post ...

[Midge]

Having never read Pullman, I can't really comment on his work. However, I do think comparing Tolkien and Lewis is like apples and oranges. Tolkien explicitly said that LOTR was not an allegory, while Lewis's work is clearly an allegory.

I've heard that he told a mother who was worried her son was worshiping Aslan instead of Christ that there was no difference in the two at all.

Actually, based on his space trilogy, I think he sort of thought that the actual name of Christ was not important (God's name in "Old Solar" was Maleldil, but the main character came to understand the two to be one). Sort of like in English it's Jesus Christ and in Spanish it's Jesu Cristo. While there's not as much difference, the two ARE different.[/tangent]

Also - what kind of book would be worth reading if, as Pullman insists about LOTR, there was no major question being asked. While there may be no allegory in LOTR (and indeed, it is difficult to extract a perfect allegory like you'll find in Lewis), Tolkien still talks about Frodo being MEANT to have the Ring, etc. There is mention of a higher power in LOTR, and in other books, that "power" is given a name as Eru or Iluvatar and the various Valar.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Based on the quotes given by GM at the beginning, I get the impression Pullman doesn't think a work is serious unless it blatantly hits you over the head with an ideology.

[inked]

Having never read Pullman, I can't really comment on his work. However, I do think comparing Tolkien and Lewis is like apples and oranges. Tolkien explicitly said that LOTR was not an allegory, while Lewis's work is clearly an allegory.

I've heard that he told a mother who was worried her son was worshiping Aslan instead of Christ that there was no difference in the two at all.

Actually, based on his space trilogy, I think he sort of thought that the actual name of Christ was not important (God's name in "Old Solar" was Maleldil, but the main character came to understand the two to be one). Sort of like in English it's Jesus Christ and in Spanish it's Jesu Cristo. While there's not as much difference, the two ARE different.[/tangent]

Also - what kind of book would be worth reading if, as Pullman insists about LOTR, there was no major question being asked. While there may be no allegory in LOTR (and indeed, it is difficult to extract a perfect allegory like you'll find in Lewis), Tolkien still talks about Frodo being MEANT to have the Ring, etc. There is mention of a higher power in LOTR, and in other books, that "power" is given a name as Eru or Iluvatar and the various Valar.

Midge, Lewis' work is clearly called allegorical by persons who do not understand the nature of allegory. Lewis calls is "supposal" literature. Suppose I imagine a world in which x in our world occurs in y world. This is symbolist literature. The closest current practitioner of which I am familiar is JK Rowling in the Harry Potter series. You could argue that the latter is allegorical, but clearly you are not using allegory in the classical sense. To grasp the difference, you should peruse Lewis', THE ALLEGORY OF LOVE.

You have heard somewhat incorrectly. What Lewis actually said was that the mother need not be worried that Aslan was replacing Christ, but that in the boy's age range, the appeal of Aslan was understandable and not absolute.

The Space trilogy deals with 1) an unfallen world into which evil enters but in which the characters have not free will to enter into fallenness, 2) an unfallen world in which the characters have free will and are enticed by evil, but do not fall, and 3) a fallen world in which redemption has entered and free will makes choices in regard to Whom or whom they will serve. Another set of supposals, not allegory. In such a world, it is only in the last, where redemption has occurred that the actual name is a matter of importance because it is historically known and necessary. In the supposed worlds of Malacandra and Perelandra, it would be entirely different according to the revelation given on those worlds. In Thulcandra, The Silent Planet, we have the last situation when the attempted invasions of the other two have failed and the Bent Oysara has called down Deep Heaven upon Thulcandra and himself.

I'd be interested if you can produce the "perfect allegory like you'll find in Lewis" because I suspect it is not what you think. And that would be fun to talk about.

Pullman suffers from what many a materialist/atheist suffers, the need for an external standard by which they can judge the world wanting whilst denying that such a standard exists. And, it is that denial of absolute reality governing the reality we indwell (whether in fact or fiction) that renders so banal their attempts to "create" alternatives. They in actual practice depend from the tattered remnants of Christian moral and ethical practice or the Tao (as defined by Lewis) to justify their "radical" approach.

To summarize, Lewis is a symbolist writer as is Tolkien. Pullman is not. Facets appearing like allegory are no more necessarily allegory than faceted glass is diamond. Finally, all story is retelling the Great Story and ends in Eucatastrophe, if successful.

Fun, huh?

[brownjenkins]

You could argue that the latter is allegorical, but clearly you are not using allegory in the classical sense. To grasp the difference, you should peruse Lewis', THE ALLEGORY OF LOVE.

How would you define classical allegory, and why do you view it as such an insult?

[GrayMouser]

To summarize, Lewis is a symbolist writer as is Tolkien. Pullman is not.

So you finally read him?

[GrayMouser]

Based on the quotes given by GM at the beginning, I get the impression Pullman doesn't think a work is serious unless it blatantly hits you over the head with an ideology.

No, I think he is saying that they both hit you over the head with an ideology, but that Lewis's ideology- being Protestant- is serious, and that Tolkien's- being Catholic- is not.

(Though I agree that Lewis is much more blatant in using his hammer. )

This is an old Protestant theme that Pullman refers to here- not surprisingly for someone who took his title from Milton - that Catholicism is a closed system that simply demands assent, whereas Protestantism, in some traditions anyway, is more open to individualistic exploration, rejecting an all-encompassing Thomism.

You said you were reading Kierkegaard....

[inked]

How would you define classical allegory, and why do you view it as such an insult?

Wrong on both counts, BJ. Classical allegory is thoroughly discussed and defined by Lewis in THE ALLEGORY OF LOVE. It is not what most people think. In brief, very brief, genuine allegory requires the one-to-one correspondence(s) that enable to see the allegorical figure/person/place/activity as always the same and engaging under such terms the issue(s). It is a psychomachia to use the term Lewis discusses. Thus, just as an octagonal red sign in the USA always means "Stop," the figure in the true allegory always has a meaning. It is the interaction of the "figures" that portrays the events within the conceit of the author to represent particular events. The PILGRIM'S PROGRESS is the classical English allegory. If you have read this, you will see it is dramatically and remarkably and consistently different from TCON. And, if you have read Lewis' THE PILGRIM'S REGRESS, you will see how one author is utilizing two very different genres in his writing.

Allegory is not an insult. Neither is dicrimination between two different genres of writing. They are different. The fact that modern education cannot or does not or will not make the distinctions, well, that's modernity for you. And postmoderns are worse, of course, because they generally decry the intent of the author to communicate a message and insist that their own message-making is all that counts. That is demonstrably false in allegory, supposal, fiction, and didactic writing. The confusion of categories is a besetting modern/postmodern sin/error/delusion.

GM, "So you finally read him?"
Only his published writings on the nature his work and assumptions. I haven't wasted my time on the novels. But, you see, I believe the author when he says he has an intention and attempted to communicate it. Now, whether or not he succeeds (see, for instance, the discussion of JKR's alleged gayness of Dumbledore discussions elsewhere on this site) is a matter of another discourse. I make no such judgment. I honor the author's stated goals.

Besides, I've re-read THE PILGRIM's REGRESS and TCON and THE SCREWTAPE LETTERS in the interim. As probably shows................:D

[Gwaimir Windgem]

No, I think he is saying that they both hit you over the head with an ideology, but that Lewis's ideology- being Protestant- is serious, and that Tolkien's- being Catholic- is not.

(Though I agree that Lewis is much more blatant in using his hammer. )

The heavy-handed tactics are what I meant by "hitting one over the head." Probably every book ever written is imbued with an ideology, LotR no less than others; it's when you stand up on a soap box and start fumbling for your megaphone that I start to see problems. ;)

I must say, though, I'm rather taken aback by his statement that he does not like Narnia because he doesn't like Lewis' answers. Really? For myself, I have no problem enjoying a book, a movie, or whatever, just because I find myself in fundamental disagreement with its ideological commitments. What matters for liking or not liking a story is the skill with which it is told and with which issues are handled, not whether or not, in the final analysis, I agree with the answers given.

This is an old Protestant theme that Pullman refers to here- not surprisingly for someone who took his title from Milton - that Catholicism is a closed system that simply demands assent, whereas Protestantism, in some traditions anyway, is more open to individualistic exploration, rejecting an all-encompassing Thomism.

In my experience this theme is associated with Anglicanism and with "Anglo" modes of thought, more than which Protestantism as such. It's what enables people (usually British people) who tend towards a militant secularism, such as Dawkins, to maintain a certain benevolence towards liberal Protestantism, and especially Anglicanism, as "religion for people with a brain;" as an aside, this conception of Anglicanism is what leads to the revisionist notion of the Blessed Virgin Elizabeth I as an enlightened and free-thinking monarch, who consistently pursued policies of religious tolerance and freedom of worship.

You said you were reading Kierkegaard....

Indeed, but he's more interested in what we live than in what we think, since he holds that we think what we think by necessity, rather than freedom. I'm more worried than SK's thought may be too selfish, than that it may be too Protestant.

[GrayMouser]

Midge, Lewis' work is clearly called allegorical by persons who do not understand the nature of allegory. Lewis calls is "supposal" literature. Suppose I imagine a world in which x in our world occurs in y world. This is symbolist literature. The closest current practitioner of which I am familiar is JK Rowling in the Harry Potter series.

Another current practitioner is, of course, Phillip Pullman. As you my have realised if you bothered to read him before proclaiming what he does and does not accomplish in his novels.

To summarize, Lewis is a symbolist writer as is Tolkien. Pullman is not.



No. To summarize, it is absolutely meaningless to listen to your summary of what Pullman says as a writer because you have never read any of his writings.

How can I put this as politely as possible? What would the reaction of people on this board to someone who proudly proclaims he refuses to read LoTR, but then insists on telling everyone what is and is not in it, based on his reading of some interviews and articles?

Or who has read a few of Lewis's polemics, and, based on that, proceeds to inform us what the Chronicles of Narnia are all about, while insisting he would never lower himself to actually read them?

When it comes to Pullman, you are not only ignorant (in the dictionary sense of the meaning, not as an insult) but willfully ignorant.

Any of your comments on what Pullman has written in "His Dark Materials" should be prefaced by "Though I have no idea of what I'm talking about, this is what I think..." "Not knowing anything about any of this, my opinion is..."

EllathValatari on the newbie thread said:
In addition, it bugs me when Middle Earth topics are being discussed and some one comes and asks who Frodo was ...things like that.

It's worse when someone who has no idea who Frodo was comes on and tells you what his quest was all about :eek:

[GrayMouser]

The heavy-handed tactics are what I meant by "hitting one over the head." Probably every book ever written is imbued with an ideology, LotR no less than others; it's when you stand up on a soap box and start fumbling for your megaphone that I start to see problems. ;)

I must say, though, I'm rather taken aback by his statement that he does not like Narnia because he doesn't like Lewis' answers. Really? For myself, I have no problem enjoying a book, a movie, or whatever, just because I find myself in fundamental disagreement with its ideological commitments. What matters for liking or not liking a story is the skill with which it is told and with which issues are handled, not whether or not, in the final analysis, I agree with the answers given.

I agree, though of course there are cases where the author's didacticism overcomes his/her story-telling. Pullman in "The Amber Spyglass" (Book 3), Lewis in "The Last Battle", (though oddly enough I really enjoy the extremely propagandistic "That Hideous Strength", probably because it's so far over the top), Ursula K. LeGuin in "Tehanu" ( Book 4 of the Earthsea series).

See "Avatar"; Cameron, James.

In my experience this theme is associated with Anglicanism and with "Anglo" modes of thought, more than which Protestantism as such. It's what enables people (usually British people) who tend towards a militant secularism, such as Dawkins, to maintain a certain benevolence towards liberal Protestantism, and especially Anglicanism, as "religion for people with a brain;" as an aside, this conception of Anglicanism is what leads to the revisionist notion of the Blessed Virgin Elizabeth I as an enlightened and free-thinking monarch, who consistently pursued policies of religious tolerance and freedom of worship.

Disagree on this- I'm not talking about liberalism; more of what emerges when you set a righteous Protestant down with nothing but his or her conscience and a copy of Holy Scriptures- more Lutheran, Puritan, Baptist, or Presbyterian than Anglican, which after all has Bishops and Deacons, however flexible in dogma.

Recall one of Chesterton's Father Brown stories, in which the key to the murder is that an old-style Prot, who is also a general, has read the Bible without priestly guidance, resulting in his willingness to commit mass murder- all that Old Testament ethnic cleansing.

Or Cromwell to the Presbyerian Elders of Scotland, trying to get them to reach an agreement without a war: "I beseech you, in the Bowels of Christ, to consider that you may be wrong". As Scottish historian John Prebble remarked, "they had never thought so before, and saw no reason to start now."

And so the fissiparous nature of Protestantism


Indeed, but he's more interested in what we live than in what we think, since he holds that we think what we think by necessity, rather than freedom. I'm more worried than SK's thought may be too selfish, than that it may be too Protestant.

Exactly- but that's why he rejects any claims to systemic rational thought about God. The selfishness of his claim to absolute freedom (which means being free to absolutely submit to God- by the terms that he has independently arrived at ) is Protestantism's claim to to individual liberty of judgement carried to extremis.

[inked]

GM, apparently you failed to read this part or it failed to register. So, like a writer of old, I repeat, because it is important...

GM, "So you finally read him?"
Only his published writings on the nature his work and assumptions. I haven't wasted my time on the novels. But, you see, I believe the author when he says he has an intention and attempted to communicate it. Now, whether or not he succeeds (see, for instance, the discussion of JKR's alleged gayness of Dumbledore discussions elsewhere on this site) is a matter of another discourse. I make no such judgment. I honor the author's stated goals.

Capiche?;)

See here:

http://www.philip-pullman.com/assets_cm/files/PDF/the_origin_of_the_universe.pdf

http://filmchatblog.blogspot.com/2007/11/philip-pullman-extended-e-mail.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/oct/14/religion.books
*****************************

"Mr. Pullman's book offers an explicit alternative to C.S.Lewis' CHRONICLES OF NARNIA, with their pervasive Christian message. ...the meaning is clear: the heroes find true happiness only after death....

"It is a conclusion with which Mr. Pullman thoroughly disagrees. "When you look at what C.S. Lewis is saying, his message is so antilife, so cruel, so unjust" he said. "The view that the Narnia books have for the material world is one of almost undisguised contempt. At one point the old Professor says, "It's all in Plato" - meaning that the physical world we see around us is the crude, shabby, imperfect, second-rate copy of something much better.

"Instead, Mr. Pullman argues for a "republic of heaven" where people live as fully and richly as they can because there is no life beyond. "I wanted to emphasize the simple physical truth of things, the absolute primacy of the material life, rather than the spiritual or afterlife." NEW YORK TIMES, November 6, 2000, article by Lyall.

"Pullman has made clear in a lovely essay called "The Republic of Heaven" that he is passionately against any religion that puts it vision of the spirit and the afterlife above human life and the natural world, where our moral and spiritual tests as well as our pleasures are found... ." NEW YORK TIMES January 20, 2002, article by Jefferson.
******************************************
I think Harry Potter and the Pullman books are antithetical in their world views. The styles are different but so is the intent of the authors. Its pretty obvious that JKR believes in the Great Truths and life as prepatory for what comes after. Pullman has publically stated that his goal is to convince readers that this world is all there is period and he thinks that a platonic understanding of reality is false.

This doesn't mean he doesn't write well. It is just that he asserts a materialistic world view with the intent of incultating it.

One critic makes a case for Gilderoy Lockhart being a literary portrait of Pullman (see THE HIDDEN KEY TO HARRY POTTER or LOOKING FOR GOD IN HARRY POTTER both by John Granger).

Does anyone who has read both authors to date in full think similarly to me? or differently?
__________________
inked
"Aslan is not a tame lion. Safe?
No, he's not safe, but he's good."
CSL/LWW
see:http://www.sf-fandom.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=15080&highlight=Philip+Pullman
**************************************

These assessments of Pullman and his proclaimed "philosophy" are not pulled out of nowhere, GM. But I plainly stated that I had not wasted my time with the books, did I not. Poor me, just reading the author's stated, iterated, and re-iterated positions. What is the world coming to?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Disagree on this- I'm not talking about liberalism; more of what emerges when you set a righteous Protestant down with nothing but his or her conscience and a copy of Holy Scriptures- more Lutheran, Puritan, Baptist, or Presbyterian than Anglican, which after all has Bishops and Deacons, however flexible in dogma.

Recall one of Chesterton's Father Brown stories, in which the key to the murder is that an old-style Prot, who is also a general, has read the Bible without priestly guidance, resulting in his willingness to commit mass murder- all that Old Testament ethnic cleansing.

Note that when I say "liberal," I am not referring to a political ideology, but to anti-authoritarianisms that are more influenced by Enlightenment philosophies than by the reactionaries of the Reformations. I think part of the problem is that what we are talking about are in fact two rather similar things. ;) The main difference lies in cultural associations, I think, and the one I'm talking about often derives from an idealized conception of what you're talking about.

As an aside, it hardly needs saying, but Father*Brown is an excellent example of the heavy-handed pedagogy that turns me off.

Or Cromwell to the Presbyerian Elders of Scotland, trying to get them to reach an agreement without a war: "I beseech you, in the Bowels of Christ, to consider that you may be wrong".

Ah, if only Cromwell would ever have taken his own advice. :p

Exactly- but that's why he rejects any claims to systemic rational thought about God. The selfishness of his claim to absolute freedom (which means being free to absolutely submit to God- by the terms that he has independently arrived at ) is Protestantism's claim to to individual liberty of judgement carried to extremis.

At least in the works I've read, he does not reject claims to systemic thought about God. He distinguishes between objective and subjective thought; certainly for him, the subjective thought is far and away the more important, but so far as I know he does not deny the validity of objective thought, either about God or about anything else. He only insists that it loses all value if not accompanied with the subjective element.

[Midge]

Midge, Lewis' work is clearly called allegorical by persons who do not understand the nature of allegory. Lewis calls is "supposal" literature. Suppose I imagine a world in which x in our world occurs in y world. This is symbolist literature. The closest current practitioner of which I am familiar is JK Rowling in the Harry Potter series. You could argue that the latter is allegorical, but clearly you are not using allegory in the classical sense. To grasp the difference, you should peruse Lewis', THE ALLEGORY OF LOVE.



I'll admit that "allegory" is not a word I looked up to find the exact definition of before I used it, and therefore I might have used it incorrectly. Basically I meant that there are several parallels between the Chronicles of Narnia and the Bible because Lewis intentionally put them there. Tolkien did not, and so you'll be hard pressed to find any similar parallels.

I think this was the extent of what Pullman was talking about, right? He wasn't really looking any deeper into either of the books, and it was on that basis that he said that Tolkien is trivial and Lewis is wrong.

[inked]

Midge, Pullman said that Lewis was wrong because this world is all there is. A rather direct oppositional statement. He is not called the "anti-Lewis" for nothing.

Allegory in the slap-happy nomenclature that passes for education today is mere similarity or potential identification. It was not for nothing that Professor Kirk asked, "What do they teach in schools?"

Allegory requires a one-to-one correspondence. This means that the cardboard cut-out that is a representation of x always acts in manner x'. You will find, in fact, that Aslan does not always correspond to Jesus Christ in such and x' fashion. That means that Aslan is NOT in fact allegorical.

There are many similarities between Aslan and the Christ of traditional theology. There DOES NOT EXIST the x to x' prime relationship that true allegory requires. E.G., Aslan does not save all of Narnia by his sacrifice of himself, whereas Jesus' sacrifice is efficacious for all people in all time in all places. Aslan substitutes himself for Edmund. Edmund is the sole object of Aslan's substitutionary death. Aslan remains limited by his physical incarnation as a lion in Narnia. Jesus the Messiah died for the whole world and was not limited by his incarnational status after the Ascension and indeed sent the Holy Spirit to be the Presence of the Father and the Son in each and every individual believer on this planet.

So, I trust you can see that, while the parallels are numerous and significant, they do not fulfill the allegory criteria per se and thus are not allegory.

If you use the term allegorical in a merely analogical sense, it is superficially applicable, but at most merely suggestive and not at all definitive. This constitutes a misuse of the term in common or vulgar parlance. One cannot expect too much of modern education, I think. It covers a vast amount of material in a layer that is at best 1/4 inch thick and so broad as to constitute a layer of sand in the Sahara for breadth.

I am not attacking you, only demonstrating the distinction between true allegory and the modern insufficiency of understanding that passes as education in the matter.

Have you read either THE PILGRIM'S PROGRESS (Bunyan) or THE PILGRIM'S REGRESS (Lewis)? If you have read either true allegory and then The Chronicles of Narnia, you would have immediate access to the difference. If you have not, please read two chapters in either one of the books, and tell me if you think they remotely resemble Lewis' work in Narnia in any substantive manner.

If you have time, of course, what being newly married et alia. :D

As regards what Pullman was talking about, I refer you to him and his stated superficiality in regard to both Lewis and Tolkien. The arrogant ignorance he displays results from a mis-reading that can only be intentional in the face of the evidence. What that means, I leave to you to determine for yourself. I have stated, on evidential grounds that the man is a mere materialist and had nothing, nothing, except the admiration of the chance collation of atoms which have resulted in his existence to judge others by, and he uniformly finds them,...surprise!...wanting. That would be because they do not match the chance collation of atoms that somehow gave rise to the superior intelligence and all-knowing judgement labelled Philip Pullman existence, as miserable as it is.

There are alternative understandings of reality but they require a bit of humility in the face of existence which poor Phil seems not able to muster, understand, or admit of possibility, not to mention probability.

[GrayMouser]

Sorry for the belated reply- was on a camping trip.

But your reply to my somewhat irascible post missed the point- I was not referring to Pullman's philosophy, which you summed up correctly- minus the editorializing, of course- but to this:

Suppose I imagine a world in which x in our world occurs in y world. This is symbolist literature.
.......
To summarize, Lewis is a symbolist writer as is Tolkien. Pullman is not.

Like imagining a world in which the Church in our world occurs in Lyra's world as the Magesterium?

Like imagining a world in which the folklore witches of our world appear as the Witches in the Dark Material's world?

"To summarize, Lewis is a symbolist writer as is Tolkien. Pullman is not."


How so? This is the statement I challenged you to back up, and which cannot be done without reading the story, because it doesn't refer to Pullman's thoughts on Lewis's or Tolkien's beliefs, but to the actual book he has written.

Going back to an earlier post, you said, "Pullman not included per se but I think he would fill the bill as postmodernity product and facilitator."

Which, again, to anyone who has read the books is just silly- unless of course you're using post-modernism in the standard conservative definition of "new things that I don't like".

Pullman on modernity and post-modernity:

A great deal of the tricksiness and games-playing of modern and post-modern literary fiction, the novels in the form of lists, the adoption of multiple voices, the uneasiness about privileging a particular point of view, the ironic distancing of emotion, the novels with indexes, the circular texts that come back and contradict themselves, the chapters printed in different coloured inks, the twitchy continual reminding the readers of the fictionality, the narrativity, of the text in front of them, and above all that curse of modern fiction, the novel written in the present tense: a great deal of that, I think, is a way of coping with embarrassment, with the shame of catching oneself telling a story, with the self-consciousness that arises when we lose our innocence about texts and about language....

....Where literature is concerned, if you can make yourself look at things as calmly as you can, you eventually realise that phrases such as "he said" are actually a very good way of indicating who said what, and that the past tense is the natural storytelling tense, and that the business of writing narrative consists of thinking of some interesting events, putting them in the most effective order, and relating them as clearly as you can; and that the best place for the narrator is outside the story, telling it, and not inside the story drawing attention to his own self-consciousness.

http://www.sofn.org.uk/conferences/pullman2002.html

[GrayMouser]

Another example of the difference between allegory and symbolism that more people may be familiar with is the difference between George Orwell's "Animal Farm" and his "1984".

"Animal Farm" has a fairly strict one-to-one relation with the Russian Revolution and the characters all represent either historical individuals- the pigs Old Major, Snowball and Napoleon being Karl Marx, Lenin/Trotsky and Stalin respectively- or classes of people- Boxer the horse, the uneducated but faithful worker; Moses the raven, the Church; Benjamin the donkey the intellectuals/Jews.

The events of the story- the Revolution, the Civil war, the driving out of Snowball, the attack on the farm by the neighbors- correspond to the history of the events 1917-1945. Orwell even said he changed the line about all the animals falling flat on their faces during the explosion that destroyed the windmill to "all the animals except Napoleon" because Stalin did after all stay in Moscow even when it was almost surrounded by the Nazis and seemed sure to fall.

[GrayMouser]

.

GM, "So you finally read him?"
Only his published writings on the nature his work and assumptions. I haven't wasted my time on the novels. But, you see, I believe the author when he says he has an intention and attempted to communicate it. Now, whether or not he succeeds (see, for instance, the discussion of JKR's alleged gayness of Dumbledore discussions elsewhere on this site) is a matter of another discourse. I make no such judgment. I honor the author's stated goals.

Besides, I've re-read THE PILGRIM's REGRESS and TCON and THE SCREWTAPE LETTERS in the interim. As probably shows................:D

Try re-reading " An Experiment in Criticism":

"A true lover of literature should be in one way like an honest examiner, who is prepared to give the highest marks to the telling, felicitous and well-documented exposition of views he dissents from or even abominates.... I read Lucretius and Dante at a time when (by and large) I agreed with Lucretius. I have read them since I came (by and large) to agree with Dante. I cannot find that this has much altered my experience, or at all altered my evaluation, of either." ;)

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Honestly, I didn't really care for Lucretius. Epic poems about ancient theories of physics just don't do it for me... :p

[GrayMouser]

Honestly, I didn't really care for Lucretius. Epic poems about ancient theories of physics just don't do it for me... :p

Yes indeedy. I remember as an ardent young atheist eagerly sitting down to embrace this great and noble work of materialist philosophy....

I'm proud to say i did finish it, but with a lot of skimming toward the later verses. :o

[GrayMouser]

inked said:

Pullman suffers from what many a materialist/atheist suffers, the need for an external standard by which they can judge the world wanting whilst denying that such a standard exists.

Not external, merely alternative.

And, it is that denial of absolute reality governing the reality we indwell (whether in fact or fiction) that renders so banal their attempts to "create" alternatives.

Said one barnacle to the other.
"Look at those foolish fish, thinking they can float around in the Void without any Absolute solid ground to base themselves on. They'll come crashing down soon enough, mark my words."

They in actual practice depend from the tattered remnants of Christian moral and ethical practice or the Tao (as defined by Lewis) to justify their "radical" approach.

"But what exactly does keep them up there?" asked the second barnacle.

"Ummm...momentum, " replied the first after a moment of thought. "Yes, that's it, momentum. You see, they were once on this rock with us, and they used it as a springboard to leap up into all that blue Emptiness. But once that momentum is over, they'll be bound to plummet back down and smash themselves on the Foundation. It'll happen any time now, just you wait and see."

........

"Say, what ever happened to those funny old barnacles who used to be around?" inquired one fish of another.

"Oh, the ones on the turtle's shell? I think the turtle headed off for warmer waters."

"Pity. I used to like to hear them talk, though I could never really understand what they used to get in such a fuss over."

[inked]

"I remember as an ardent young atheist eagerly sitting down to embrace this great and noble work of materialist philosophy...."

Do tell!

I suspect you have been reading entirely too much Lewis than is good for an ardent young atheist, especially as you toss "An Experiment in Criticism" about handily.

Pray tell, what does a materialist base an ethical standard upon? I am all ears!

[GrayMouser]

I was an ardent young atheist; alas, it's been many years since I was either young or ardent about much of anything.

Having come upon the "Experiment" much later, after first encountering critics like Stanley Fish and Wolfgang Isser, I was quite surprised to see Lewis as being more in tune with them and Reader Response theory, as opposed to the New Critics and their "affective fallacy", which was the dominant mode at the time.

Though I think Fish is far too slippery an eel- I'm more of a barnacle than that, and as far as litcrit goes would be happy to consider myself as part of the tribe of Abrams- Doing Things With Texts and all that.

[GrayMouser]

Pray tell, what does a materialist base an ethical standard upon? I am all ears!

As far as a historical account , it goes back to our origins as members of a social species living in co-dependent kinship-based small groups. As such we relied upon others, and they relied upon us.

Kinship-based altruism says you should help others who share your genes; while reciprocal altruism says you should help others in hope of getting future benefits. Both operated in the small bands we lived in on the savannas and woodlands of East Africa- and can be observed in our closest relatives, the chimps and bonobos.

If we had originated in a hive like the ants, bees and wasps, we would have been totally group-oriented, lacking in individuality. If we had evolved from solitaries like leopards or tigers, the idea of morality would never have arisen.

Thus we see the "natural law" operating in human societies:help others when you can, but not to the extent of sacrificing yourself except in extreme circumstances, and generally extend that help to those closest to you.

People who are not "one of us" should be regarded with suspicion; and it's usually okay to treat them with less regard.

Do the right thing in general; it keeps society turning over; but be prepared to cheat, especially if times are tough.

[GrayMouser]

Now, do I say that those limitations are correct, or what we should base our society on?

No, because over the course of our history our wonderfully adaptive brains have taken those instincts and gradually expanded them, just as our early daubings of pleasing colours have led to the glory of our art; the pounding of sticks and hooting around the campfire has led to music; and the telling of stories of why you shouldn't stray from the safety of camp, or how Ug-Ug fought Glup-Glup to gain the privilege of mating with the desirable Weena has developed into our tales of terror and romance.

Just so, the idea that we should treat others justly- because, in a small group what goes around comes around- leads to the freedom to expand that idea to others who were originally excluded from the group of "us".

This has been defined as the essence of liberalism- to expand as widely- as possible the circle of "us" as opposed to "them"- whereas conservatism is the opposite- "don't trust them, they're not like us; they don't share our values"- both traits are valuable and have been necessary at different times, but the trend has been strongly one way.

[GrayMouser]

Does this give us any "Absolute" value to base our morals upon?- No, but the idea of an "Absolute" standard is fallacious to start with.

Where do you find it? In the Bible, where God Himself erupts in anger because his followers have spared captive women and children, and commands that babies be torn from their mother's breasts, and have their heads smashed against rocks before their mothers are run through with spears?

In the glories of the reign of Christendom, where Jews were confined to ghettos, forced to wear distinguishing clothing and subjected to random slaughter every time a wave of holiness swept over their neighbors?

On the multi-culti thread, you keep posting items on the savage intolerance of Islam- advocating murder for apostasy, imposing religious edicts on secular society- IOTW, exactly the things that Christian Churches imposed through out their history before they got too weak and were forced into compromises by the forces of secularism.

I've focused on Christianity here because that's what's generally defended- but every culture has the same problems arising from a belief in an absolute standard of morals.

[GrayMouser]

So, no, I don't have a rock to build morality on- and the search for that, going back to Plato (and beyond) is a quest for an illusion. There is nothing to tie our human standards to in the ultimate bedrock of Reality- the morality we live by belongs to our peculiar little species; is explained by the social order we have created and can only be justified in relation to each other; it has no connection to the foundations of the Universe, or the Essence of the Way Things Really Are.

[inked]

Well, an no-longer ardent no longer young atheist, at least admits he has not basis for morality beyond hypothesizing. That's something. But, I fear, you betray an absolute value assessment in the midst of saying there are no absolutes, the line about progressing in one direction. Or do I misunderstand you?

[GrayMouser]

Martin Luther King quoted aboltionist Thomas Parker in saying " the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice."

I'd more agree with Obama's extension of that: "It bends towards justice, but here is the thing: it does not bend on its own. It bends because each of us in our own ways put our hand on that arc and we bend it in the direction of justice."

IOTW, what has happened is a historical contingency, and need not have happened this way. I don't believe that there is some Hegelian World-Spirit marching inevitably to the Ideal - nor the Marxist materialist version, or even the Macauley Whig interpretation of history "in every day in every way we're getting better and better".

Nor is it a straight-forward progress to the glorious enlightened uplands.

Modern racism, for example, is something new-- a product of the 19th and 20th Centuries, different from age-old ethnocentrism, not found in Classical, Christian, Muslim, Hindu or Confucian societies, and a definite New and Bad Thing.

I could equally easily see someone in the future looking back and applauding all the great and humanitarian progress and spread of tolerance in our times, and still be horrified by the moral blindspot of the widespread acceptance of abortion, just as we are when we look back at the spread of 'scientific' racism in the previous few centuries-

"How could they believe in the Constitution, democracy, and equality and still enslave black people?"
"How could they extend human rights to women, other races, and homosexuals, and yet still murder innocent children?"

Likewise, the rise of 20th C. totalitarianisms

a) need not have happened in the first place and

b)could have had a much less happy eventual outcome- a few different decisions on the part of Hitler could have resulted in either a Nazi dictatorship dominating the Old World in partnership with Japan, or a stalemate between Germany and the Soviet Union.

Or we could have set off WWIII and whoever was left of us would be hidng in a cave trying not to get eaten by marauding packs of cannibals :eek:

(Interesting thought experiment- take an educated European from 1910, flash freeze and wake him/her up in 2010- give them a quick description of the political/economic set-up of the world today, and they'd probably be totally unsurprised at the general spread of liberal democracy and benevolent capitalism, and conclude that the 20th century must have been historically very dull indeed.}

[inked]

But what would they think of the enormous effort expended to make what has happened happen, do you think? Or of that illustrious list Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, and Hitler who ventured for communism via their socialist systematic?:confused:

[GrayMouser]

But what would they think of the enormous effort expended to make what has happened happen, do you think? Or of that illustrious list Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, and Hitler who ventured for communism via their socialist systematic?:confused:

Well, other than the fact that Herr h was in no way a communist... that's the point- our hypothetical believer in Whig progressivism would be totally astonished at seeing what actually had happened to bring about his vision.

Anyway, a little OT (not that that's stopped either of us before :evil:

Back to the match...

[GrayMouser]

Came across this will digging up some background:

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+marriage+of+heaven+and+hell%3F+Philip+Pullman, +C.S.+Lewis,+and+the...-a0227196957

The authors talk about the very strong parallels between Lewis and Pullman, and claim Pulman, by deliberately trying to be the anti-Lewis was tremendously influenced by him. They also show some of the many times Pullman pays tribute to Lewis. They draw a distinction between Pullman-the-Reader (hates Lewis and all he stands for), Pullman-the-Writer (strongly influenced by Lewis), and Pullman-the-Critic ( highly appreciative of Lewis-the-Critic).

[GrayMouser]

I also came up with this:

'Fantasy, Myth and the Measure of Truth: Tales of Pullman, Lewis, Tolkien, MacDonald and Hoffmann. William Gray.

Despite Philip Pullman’s endearingly inconsistent claims that His Dark Materials is not fantasy, to readers and critics alike the series represents one of the most notable achievements of mythopoeic fantasy to date. William Gray’s Fantasy, Myth and the Measure of Truth is the most ambitious and detailed demonstration of just how deep Pullman’s trilogy is rooted in the fantasy tradition stretching back through C.S. Lewis, J.R.R. Tolkien, George MacDonald and on to German Idealist authors and philosophers such as Novalis and E.T.A. Hoffmann. Gray argues that His Dark Materials “may be seen as in certain respects the culmination of this tradition of mythopoeic fiction infused with [...] a particular kind of Romanticism.” Such fantasy appropriates “older mythologies in a new key” and addresses “some central religious questions that have major cultural implications” (1).

http://www.irscl.com/review_myth_and_measure_truth.html

which annoys me a bit because I though of it, well, not first, but independently.

Though I would take a slightly different angle.

While Pullman's writing style , like most (all?- haven't read a lot of post-Tolkien stuff) High Fantasy, is in the Romantic tradition which runs from the Germans through Coleridge and Wordsworth to MacDonald and on to Lewis and Tolkien, his philosophy, while also rooted in Romanticism, comes from a different branch.

The German Romantics were a reaction to the Enlightenment, and under the influence of Coleridge in particular, that led to one school of Romanticism- conservative, Christian, often Catholic or Anglo-Catholic, medievalist, monarchist, anti-democratic, reactionary- not only The Return of the King, but 4 out of the 7 Narnia books are about restoring a King (or Kings and Queens), while the Magician's Nephew deals with establishing the first king ( it's made clear that those silly Animals are not fit to rule themselves).

The other tradition, the one that Pullman draws from, is the Romanticism of the early Blake and Wordsworth- Blake who said that Milton "was a true poet, and thus of the Devil's Party without knowing it"

and the Wordsworth who, looking back at his younger self at the time of the French Revolution, said
"Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive, But to be young was very heaven."

(I know what you mean Willy, I remember the 60s.)

the tradition of the Great Rebellion against God ( not the Enlightenment's mere dismssal) which was continued in Byron and Shelley, not to mention whole hordes of bad heavy-metal bands.

[inked]

Herr h was not a communist but a fascist; obverse and reverse, IMHO. The only difference is the allegation of who is in charge. In communism as actually engaged in in the 20th century (and its derogated socialistic forms) alleged the people; fascism, the state, particularly the LEADER. In practice, not much separated them ... except the numbers of people killed in the name of the government.