# Dark thoughts on Tolkien's genius



## Eledhwen (Nov 11, 2004)

I thought it pertinent to copy this from today's issue of The Times (UK newspaper). Any comments?


> _Andrew Pierce, Times columnist_: HE HAS been hailed by many critics as the best children’s author since J. R. Tolkien, who created the magnificent Lord of the Rings trilogy.
> 
> Yet Philip Pullman — whose own His Dark Materials trilogy is to be made into a Hollywood film by the same company that turned Tolkien’s masterpiece into the most decorated film in the history of the Academy Awards — has a surprise for his fans. He does not rate Tolkien. Pullman is quietly confident that this own film will be a critical success in the hands of New Line Cinema. But In conversation with Jeanette Winterson, the author of Oranges are Not the Only Fruit, he was dismissive of Tolkien.
> 
> “The Lord of the Rings is not a serious book because it does not say anything interesting, or new, or truthful about the human condition,” he told Winterson in an interview in the December issue of Harpers & Queen.


As I posted this thread, I will reserve my comments until later.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Nov 11, 2004)

Eledhwen said:


> I thought it pertinent to copy this from today's issue of The Times (UK newspaper). Any comments? As I posted this thread, I will reserve my comments until later.



First of all, who _is_ this Pullman anyway? I don't think America has taken him to her bosom as a serious writer of children's books, at least not to _my_ meager knowledge.

Second, by his statement, he's going to catch a lot of hell from Tolkien fans who, I daresay, might have gone to see his movie but now won't.

Third, this is the kind of statement (“The Lord of the Rings is not a serious book because it does not say anything interesting, or new, or truthful about the human condition,”) I'd expect from a little man with a big ego, a man whose heart is shriveled and whose essence is soaked through in pettiness. But in point of cold fact, such a statement belies the probability that he's never read LOTR, or that it was beyond his grasp, or that he simply doesn't understand _newness, truth, or the human condition_ — or all of the above. Perhaps there's a reason why the man hasn't gone beyond writing for children rather than adults. Another possibility: he's simply afraid of Tolkien's competition.

But most of all, I refer you to Tom Shippey, who, writing in "J.R.R. Tolkien: Author of the Century" (AUTHOR OF THE *CENTURY*, Pullman, *hello!!!*) says,

"A subject ... has been the general phenomenon of intense critical hostility to Tolkien, the refusal to allow him to be even a part of 'English literature', even on the part of those self-professedly commited to 'widening the canon'. One reason is that while the hostility is open enough the reasons for it often remain unexpressed, hints and sneers rather than statements. ... The assumption seems to be that those of the right way of thinking (Susan Jeffery's's _literati_) will know without being told, and those of the other party do not deserve debate: classic tactics of attempted marginalization.

..."What is the psychology of this, one wonders? ... Another feature of response to Tolkien has been what I can only call simple snootiness, and what Orwell called the 'automatic snigger' of the English-speaking Establishment intellectual."

Methinks our Mr. Pullman falls into the lower — very likely the lowest — levels of that category.

BTW — for those of you who might wish to make your feelings known to him, his email address is [email protected].

I give the last word to Professor Tolkien, from the Forward to LOTR:

"Some who have read the book, or at any rate have reviewed it, have found it boring, absurd, or contemptible; and I have no cause to complain, since I have similar opinions of their works. ... The most critical reader of all, myself, now finds many defects, major and minor, but...will pass over these in silence, except one that has been noted by others: the book is too short."

Barley


----------



## alcesta (Nov 11, 2004)

Speechless. I can only be mortified that my English is not rich enough to express my feelings adequately, and even in my mother tongue there are no decent words I could say to Mr Pullman. And to think I was actually considering reading some of his books one day! Not only the movie, now I won't bother and waste my time on his books either, since I don't know what I can learn from man who sees nothing worthy in Tolkien's work. Fortunately, Barliman has spared me most effort, and i agree on almost all points, except I think that to say


> Perhaps there's a reason why the man hasn't gone beyond writing for children rather than adults.


could sound a bit like underestimating of children's literature. I'm sure you didn't mean that.
And my standing ovation for the idea! (I mean putting Pullman's e-mail address here )


----------



## Gothmog (Nov 11, 2004)

> “The Lord of the Rings is not a serious book because it does not say anything interesting, or new, or truthful about the human condition,” he told Winterson in an interview in the December issue of Harpers & Queen.


However, Tolkien was never pretentious enough to attempt to say anything "Interesting, or new, or truthful" about the human condition. He simply wrote a story. It so happens that the simple story of Tolkien leads many to find their own "interesting, new and truthful" points about the human condition in their own time not just how things were in the time of the author.

And as for sending comments to Pullman, Tolkien (as Barly has already quoted) has given the best possible answer, anything more would be superfluous.


----------



## Astaldo (Nov 11, 2004)

Maybe we should ask him who was one of the first persons who wrote fantasy like Prof. Tolkien and then ask him who he was inspired. The most fantasy writers say that are inspire by Prof. Tolkien. Didn't he. Anyway he made sure that all Tolkien fans will dislike him.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Nov 11, 2004)

alcesta said:


> ...my standing ovation for the idea! (I mean putting Pullman's e-mail address here )



Hee hee heeeeeee! (And your English is just fine!)

Barley


----------



## Arvedui (Nov 12, 2004)

In my opinion, Pullman is partly right in one thing: _The Lord of the Rings_


> does not say anything interesting, or new, or truthful about the human condition


 Partly beacuse it probably doesn't say anything new. But Pullman makes the mistake of viewing _The Lord of the Rings _ as a separate work. IMO, it cannot be viewed as such. It is a sequel to The Silmarillion, and therefore it is a part of an attempt to provide a legendarium for England.
So, taken in its right context, _The Lord of the Rings_ does indeed also say something new about the human condition.
And according to another thread recently started, some believe that it does represent the truth.

Check Tolkien at the end of time


----------



## Eledhwen (Nov 12, 2004)

I have read the whole His Dark Materials trilogy, because I made it my business to read all the books that achieved the top five places in the BBC's Big Read poll (which Lord of the Rings won).

I spent the whole of the first book wondering when I would care two hoots about the protagonist, and never quite got there, which was not a good sign. Pullman freely admits to pinching ideas wholesale from other writings (acknowledgements at the end of book 3); I found the first book had strong similarities with Robert Heinlein (RL Hubbard) in "Job" (as in the Bible Character), who depicted a society where air travel was by dirigibles, the church was the ruling body, with all that would entail, and the angels were bolshy gits - just like in HDM; but Heinlein's book was not acknowledged. I found no inspiration in the books that helped me to understand the human condition any better, and wonder whether a work of fiction that sets out to address this would actually be worth reading.

Pullman is confident that his books will make blockbuster films in New Line's hands. That remains to be seen. The stories are complicated - flitting between different worlds courtesy of the subtle knife. It would take an extraordinary director to pull it off.

There is no doubting the guy's popularity. I saw a queue in Oxford a few months back, going right down the street and round a corner. It ended in a bookshop where Philip Pullman was signing books. He has the ear of a bunch of intellectual pseuds - the ones who don't rate Tolkien - who sang his praises all through The Big Read and put LotR's success down to the films (even though it has won every book poll ever held, since it was published).

I won't be writing to Philip Pullman, he's not worth the bother. But I'm glad I got his books out of the library and didn't actually fork out for them; I shall not be re-reading them.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Nov 12, 2004)

Eledhwen said:


> ... I made it my business to read all the books that achieved the top five places in the BBC's Big Read poll (which Lord of the Rings won).



Well, no wonder he's so pissy — _he_ didn't win!

Barley


----------



## alcesta (Nov 12, 2004)

Arvedui said:


> In my opinion, Pullman is partly right in one thing: _The Lord of the Rings_ Partly beacuse it probably doesn't say anything new.


Sure, that's one possible point of view. But even so, and viewing LotR separately, on the other hand we must ask ourselves: how many authors are there at all who actually _said _something essentially new about the human condition? And in one book?



> Hee hee heeeeeee! (And your English is just fine!)


 Thanks. 
*_bows to the worthy keeper_*


----------



## 33Peregrin (Nov 12, 2004)

Hey- all I know is that Tolkien's book gave me everything and Mr. Pullman's books didn't get me more than half way through the second one.

Tolkien's book is this story that seems to give me a lot of answers and hope.

Perhaps, Pullman shouldn't say these things he says. Maybe he only doesn't want to be viewed as another fantasy writer who can only take from Tolkien and get no farther. I would like to give his books another try, but I know that they never got to me like The Lord of the Riongs.


----------



## Arvedui (Nov 13, 2004)

alcesta said:


> Sure, that's one possible point of view. But even so, and viewing LotR separately, on the other hand we must ask ourselves: how many authors are there at all who actually _said _something essentially new about the human condition? And in one book?


Exactly!
Some of the philosophers from Socrates and forward to our days, perhaps. But not many more.


----------



## Wolfshead (Nov 20, 2004)

I enjoyed His Dark Materials immensely when I read them. I have not read them for a couple of years, though, same as with Tolkien, so I can't compare them properly. They're both childrens books, but they are ones that are also appreciated by adults. And if anything, I'd say His Dark Materials is more challenging than LOTR - debates about god and so on. I don't think I could have _fully_ understood His Dark Materials when I was 10 or 11, whereas I could LOTR.



> “The Lord of the Rings is not a serious book because it does not say anything interesting, or new, or truthful about the human condition,” he told Winterson in an interview in the December issue of Harpers & Queen.


He's probably right about the human condition bit, but as others have said, that's not really a big deal. But note that's only an extract from an interview - he might well have said he enjoyed LOTR on the previous line. Saying it's not serious is not necessarily saying it's a bad book.

But really, why does it matter if he doesn't fully appreciate Tolkien? Why should he be boycotted? I'll go and see his films, and no doubt I'll read his books again some day. There's such a thing as over-reacting, especially when not all the facts are known - the Terry Pratchett thread being a prime example.


----------



## Eledhwen (Nov 22, 2004)

HDM was majorly derivative, I found; but the pieces were used to create an entirely different jigsaw. I think my knowledge of the Bible, church history and other authors might have got in the way of my enjoyment of Pullman's books, but I still find it distateful and somewhat incredible when fantasy authors rate their own works above LotR when the rest of the world is telling them otherwise (or maybe like the kings of old, their ears do not hear beyond their own sycophants, so they actually believe it).


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Nov 22, 2004)

Eledhwen said:


> ..I still find it distateful and somewhat incredible when fantasy authors rate their own works above LotR when the rest of the world is telling them otherwise...



The larger the ego, the more smaller the heart and mind...

Barley


----------



## HLGStrider (Nov 23, 2004)

If I remember correctly, this is not the first time Pullman has spouted off at the mouth about other writers. I have never read anything of his. For one thing, I had never heard of him before I came to this site and then it wasn't his books I heard about but his criticism of books I love. From what I read about him, he is a man who doesn't like Christianity or Christian authors, and while Tolkien is not explicitly Christian, he does have a world view considered by most to be Judeo-Christian, a world view Pullman seems to hold in disdain. Therefore, anything written in this vein is a bedtime story to him. 


I'm going to find that other thread.


----------



## HLGStrider (Nov 23, 2004)

http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?t=8249&highlight=Phillip+Pullman


There is a link to the one I want on this thread, but the link no longer works. Could anyone help me figure out why?

Beorn posted the link, but I can't get to it from there.


----------



## Eledhwen (Nov 23, 2004)

HLGStrider said:


> From what I read about him, he is a man who doesn't like Christianity or Christian authors.


PP is an evangelistic atheist (though he writes stories with angelic beings without saying why they exist), and therefore has to weigh more heavily on the human condition (and various other creatures), because with his world view the humans have to be self-reliant, and to have every attempt to call on a higher power end in failure. It is a built-in limitation to his writing, though he would probably argue that it is a strength.


----------



## Gothmog (Nov 24, 2004)

HLGStrider said:


> There is a link to the one I want on this thread, but the link no longer works. Could anyone help me figure out why?
> 
> Beorn posted the link, but I can't get to it from there.


I have tried the link in Beorn's post on that thread. It would seem that the thread you are looking for no longer exists on TTF. It must have been deleted in one of the forum cleanings.


----------



## HLGStrider (Nov 25, 2004)

Makes sense. It was, I believe, a Stuff and Bother thread and those generally tend to get deleted faster than others. 

The subject of the thread was similar to this one. Pullman had made some statements denouncing _The Chronicles of Narnia_ as "religious propaganda." One of the forum members found the statement about her favorite books and was outraged. She (I think it was a she) said that it was unfair of Pullman to denounce Lewis' works as such when at least one of his books (she listed a title. I hadn't read it) was so obviously anti-Christian and could more easily be called anti-religious-propaganda than Lewis could be called the opposite. 

So I have been given an opinion of Pullman through these sort of posts that he can't stand books that express a view opposed to his no matter how well-written they are, and therefore tries to lash out at them because he would rather they go out of print.


----------

