Pullman rips on LOTR, others

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hickli

There you're really, really reaching. One can be conceited about one's looks- but also about one's intelligence, wealth, athletic prowess, social status..... If Lewis were fixated on the physical he could have used, say, 'vain.' Nor would I equate 'self-confidence' with 'conceit.' The one is an excess of the other, which is perjorated and rightly so. By trying to force a feminist narrative of sexuality and female submission onto this (like your snark about 'keeping her head properly covered') you really make yourself sound like those old Freudian critics to whom a cigar was never just a cigar.

All Lewis was saying was that Susan had become self-absorbed, prideful, and obsessed with the 'things of this world' (by which is not meant the material, but rather the evanescent)- and thereby forgot and so lost Narnia. This is hardly radical or reactionary: even atheists will acknowledge that humility and selflessness are virtues.

Come on, it's really pushing it for an excuse when talking about a character who is said to be interested in 'lipstick, nylons and party invitations' - all shorthand for a young woman who is plainly interested in attracting men! If Lewis had been criticising conceit about intelligence he might have had a go at her Beatnik beret and clutch of shiny paperbacks by Sartre and Proust.

I wouldn't dare say you or any of us here would equate self-confidence with conceit, but Lewis plainly did. And I'm afraid that if someone makes a very odd and arresting comment about the nature of womanhood then it is an inevitability that women will wish to comment upon that. And we have every right to do so.

None of that alters the fact that in Vol III his storytelling collapses under the weight of his preaching: and however much he wanted his finale to evoke Blake and Milton, to me at least it's more like Act III of Faust as retold by William Burroughs. So it's disingenous of him to disclaim sermonising when he so plainly is. At least Lewis, love him or hate him, never denied writing Christian apologias.

Preaching or imagining? I'd say it rather collapses under his ambition and the whole weight of story comes down upon him here. This is something I've noticed in a lot of the best fantasy, that towards the finale the writer struggles, and sometimes just about 'loses' it. Tolkien did it, you can tell by the high falutin' language and the headlong rush of the narrative; Peake did it, with the sparse and weird third volume of Gormenghast; Rowling does it in the final volume of Potter which is seriously intense. Pullman does it too - he even loses his main protagonist somewhere along the way. What all of them have in common is that they have said things along the lines of they were 'trying to find out what happened'.

In the melee of Pullman's third book I rather found that the 'sermonising' was lost! There was so much in there that it's incredibly hard to find exactly what he is on about.

Where Pullman differs in essence to Lewis is that he does not deny that he has an agenda in there somewhere. We know some of what he's about. But not so with Lewis with his mumbo-jumbo about creating myths to lead people to something or other, which just doesn't work - and I am so not alone in thinking that!

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Folwren

Lal, you really miss the point of Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia. You shouldn't carry on so about something you obviously don't understand. You only make yourself appear foolish and snobbish. I know better than to think that you really are foolish, but if I didn't, I'm afraid I'd have to think very poorly of you after that last post...

You'll notice I don't go on for pages about how awful Pullman's writing and beliefs are.

-- Folwren

Sorry Folwren, but I do have to say this is very peculiar. I do happen not to like Narnia nor Lewis (though the film and TV adaptations have been immensely enjoyable and Shadowlands has me in bits). I first picked up Narnia 23 years ago and have struggled to find enjoyment in them ever since. Yes there are nice things in them and nice passages, but they simply do not work as good literature for me, and for much of those past 23 years I have been examining why they do not work.

You're quite free to go on about how awful Pullman is, as many have done on this thread (and indeed as davem does at home) as I am quite adult enough to discuss this coherently with anyone and not think poorly of them merely for their taste in books.

If you think I have an issue with Christian writers then I must ask why I enjoy John Masefield so much...

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Come on, it's really pushing it for an excuse when talking about a character who is said to be interested in 'lipstick, nylons and party invitations' - all shorthand for a young woman who is plainly interested in attracting men!

Or rather shorthand for a Paris Hilton, a Britney Spears or an Anna Nicole Smith. Surely you're not asserting in some uber-Pagliesque way that bimbohood is the new postmodern feminism, are you?

[Hookbill the Goomba]

Would we really be making such a fuss about Narnia if it was one of the male characters who had become interested in lipstick nylons and party invitations... Erm... Actually, we probably would come to think of it...

You can look at this issue in any way you want and draw whatever conclusions you wish and the stories themselves don't change an awful lot over all. Weather or not you enjoy them is another matter entirely. The question 'did you understand it?' does not always equal 'did you enjoy it?' I didn't, and still don't fully, understand The Last Battle, but found it an interesting read and did actually like it.

I think nowadays it is becoming increasingly difficult to make a fantasy without having such interpretations and themes planted on it, some of which the writer may never have had in mind. I think Lewis said something along these lines in something or other. Narnia comes into a lot of criticism for the villains wearing turbans and how that makes it all racist. But I'm not sure. It may be a case of needing a villain and the seeds in the past (namely in The Horse and his Boy) have suggested one such people who could be called upon to play the roll. But I'm no mind reader and cannot say for sure and would probably have to give Narnia a proper reread at some point to give a full account.

In terms of Pullman he set out to have his villains as representing a certain group, namely the religious establishement. I think this is where he comes into his criticism. By saying it outright he loses the subtlety that he could have had by leaving it ambiguous and open to interpretation. But then again, he probably didn't want it to be open to interpretation.

I think this is why we are still talking about Tolkien. He rarely, if ever, gives concrete 'this = that' analogies for anything. There are sometimes rough outlines, (his comment on what the function of each race was in a BBC interview springs to mind) but he says this in a glib fashion that suggests 'well it could be anything.' And so it can run away with you. Pullman obviously wants his message to dominate the reader's attention. This is by no means a bad thing if you agree with him or not. Beginning the book with the 'This person is wrong and everything he says is a lie' stance is not going to give you an enjoyable read in most cases.

Yes I am comfortable on this fence.

[davem]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hickli

Or rather shorthand for a Paris Hilton, a Britney Spears or an Anna Nicole Smith. Surely you're not asserting in some uber-Pagliesque way that bimbohood is the new postmodern feminism, are you?

"She's interested in nothing nowadays except nylons and lipstick and invitations. She always was a jolly sight too keen on being grown-up."

It seems Susan's 'sin' was wanting to be a 'grown-up' - which is not necessarily the same as becoming an adult. Its not that she's interested in 'nylons and lipstick and invitations.', its that she's interested in nothing except 'nylons and lipstick and invitations.' - ie not in Narnia, Aslan, or anything else beyond those superficialities.

Of course, Lewis left Susan's ultimate fate a mystery. In a letter to one 'Martin' he wrote:

“The books don’t tell us what happened to Susan. She is left alive in this world at the end, having by then turned into a rather silly, conceited young woman. But there is plenty of time for her to mend, and perhaps she will get into Aslan’s country in the end – in her own way.”

Susan's fate has interested other writers - from a Wikipedia article on Narnia:

Fantasy author Neil Gaiman wrote the 2004 short story "The Problem of Susan", in which an elderly woman, Professor Hastings, is depicted dealing with the grief and trauma of her entire family dying in a train crash. The woman's first name is not revealed, but she mentions her brother "Ed", and it is strongly implied that this is Susan Pevensie as an elderly woman. In the story Gaiman presents, in fictional form, a critique of Lewis' treatment of Susan.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hickli

On to Susan Pevensey and her nylons: I rather suspect that if someone had pointed out to Lewis pre-pub that that line could be interpreted the way Pullman (and others) have, he would quickly have amended it. He was trying to say that Susan had become enamoured of the trivial, the 'things of this world;' and had moreover confused them with being 'adult' whereas Narnia was 'childish.' Both Jack and Tollers really, really resented that sort of thinking; and unfortunately Lewis was enough of an Edwardian bachelor-chauvanist to associate 'trivial' + 'young woman' with a sort of Seventeen magazine caricature. He could just as well have said 'records and parties' or 'soap operas' or, if he were really aggressive, 'political theory and macroeconomics.' Rather like Jane at the beginning of That Hideous Strength.

Just have to ask this question here: what is the point/purpose in the narrative of having one of the children fall away from Narnia? And in the particular manner of the falling away?

If Lewis thought he was preparing minds to accept a greater story later when they came to it in adolescence, what was he doing in having one of the girls 'stray'? Why were the falling aways of the boys earlier forgiveable but not Susan's? And why is it so closely associated with , as our inestimable Lal has pointed out, things that suggest sexual coming of age? Is he preparing for readers to believe all the historically received notions of Eve being the greater sinner, and of women being morally inferior and culpable for the fall, being the more deceived? Really, was he preconditioning girls to believing that they must cover their heads in church out of their responsibility for Eve's sin? And submit to the "churching" ceremony to cleanse themselves after childbirth before they can return to public church services?

What kind of preconditioning was he about with Susan? It's got nothing to do with promoting humility and selflessness as virtues--if that's what Lewis was into, why didn't he run counter to traditional cultrual orthodoxy and demonstrate those traits in a male?

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hickli

However LR isn't about 'class social structure.'

Precisely. And its view of an idyllic social organization without any strife, where there is clearly private ownership of property rather than communal ownership, provides the kind of silence which speaks volumes.

Originally Posted by Folwen

Lal, you really miss the point of Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia. You shouldn't carry on so about something you obviously don't understand. You only make yourself appear foolish and snobbish. I know better than to think that you really are foolish, but if I didn't, I'm afraid I'd have to think very poorly of you after that last post...

Rather than dissing Lal for saying things you think are wrong, why don't you tell us what you think is the point of Lewis' Narnia? Let's keep to the books rather than to each other, shall we?

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Thank you for that good reminder to us all, Bêthberry. It's clear that this issue won't be resolved unanimously, so it's very important to let each person express personal opinions without judging them. Please state your opinion clearly and give your reasons; whether others are convinced is beyond your influence.

[piosenniel]

I'll just throw these into the mix:

Here's the link to the short story previously referred to by davem - Neil Gaiman's *The Problem of Susan*.

And here's a link to an interesting essay & discussion of The Problem of Susan on a LiveJournal site.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Just have to ask this question here: what is the point/purpose in the narrative of having one of the children fall away from Narnia? And in the particular manner of the falling away? If Lewis thought he was preparing minds to accept a greater story later when they came to it in adolescence, what was he doing in having one of the girls 'stray'? Why were the falling aways of the boys earlier forgiveable but not Susan's?

Given that the Last Battle is of course an allegory or at least an analogy of the Christian Judgment Day, it would have been, well, dishonest for Lewis not to cover the Goats as wll as the Sheep. More specifically Lewis, who was always interested in individual faith and action as they relate to salvation (see Screwtape) was making a point which is key in Lewisian theology: that indifference is often more fatal than defiant Miltonesque sin. Satan is no atheist! Edmund certainly committed a very bad act: but it was forgivable because *everything* is forgivable- provided one wants to be forgiven. Susan had simply ceased to care.

Why Susan? Well, it had to be somebody, and Susan was really the extra one. Peter (name no accident) was the High King/Viceroy/Vicar/ Pope of Aslanism. Lucy was always the Good One, the one whose belief was purest. Edmund- well, it would have blown the point of Vol 1 if he's condemned anyway in the end. That leaves Susan, the least interesting Pevensey anyway.

Is he preparing for readers to believe all the historically received notions of Eve being the greater sinner, and of women being morally inferior and culpable for the fall, being the more deceived? Really, was he preconditioning girls to believing that they must cover their heads in church out of their responsibility for Eve's sin? And submit to the "churching" ceremony to cleanse themselves after childbirth before they can return to public church services?

Is this a deliberate strawman? Are you accusing Lewis of believing or advocating such snakehandler nonsense?

Precisely. And its view of an idyllic social organization without any strife, where there is clearly private ownership of property rather than communal ownership, provides the kind of silence which speaks volumes.

I'd like to think you're not trolling here, but I equally wouldn't want to think you're serious.

In the first place, the Shire is intended to be Home: comfortable, familiar, a little childish, even if JRRT can't help a few puckish jabs at bourgeois mentality. (Strife, if without bloodshed, clearly does take place, from Frodo's mushroom-raids to the the Bilbo/S-B feud to the very existence of lawyers.) A great statewide commune would have been as alien as Carter's Mars, and required a great deal of explanation and delving into political economy that Tolkien plainly had no interest in doing. No 'Warwickshire village about the time of Queen Victoria's Diamond Jubilee' was remotely Communard!

In the second place, the notion that 'strife' is an inevitable result of private property and can be avoided only by communal ownership is a Marxist notion which not only would have been rejected by Tolkien, but also by the overwhelming majority of rational human beings. Why should he bother to be anything but silent about a fringe theory held only by a handful of people on the looney Left? The rest of us live in a world of property ownership. Again, as I posted monts ago: Tolkien wasn't writing a political novel.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

BTW, piosenniel, thanks for the livejournal link, which includes this very apt passage (I had forgotten it):

"Grown-up, indeed," said the Lady Polly. "I wish she would grow up. She wasted all her school time wanting to be the age she is now, and she'll waste all the rest of her life trying to stay that age. Her whole idea is to race onto the silliest time of one's life as quick as she can and stop there as long as she can."

And the very comparable quote from the short-story The Shoddy Lands:

...all her clothes and bath salts and two-piece swimsuits and indeed the voluptuousness of her every look and gesture, had not, and never had had, the meaning which every man would read, and was intended to read, into them. They were a huge overture to an opera in which she had no interest at all; a coronation procession with no queen at the centre of it; gestures, gestures about nothing.

About says it all.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hickli

Given that the Last Battle is of course an allegory or at least an allegory of the Christian Judgment Day, it would have been, well, dishonest for Lewis not to cover the Goats as wll as the Sheep. More specifically Lewis, who was always interested in individual faith and action as they relate to salvation (see Screwtape) was making a point which is key in Lewisian theology: that indifference is often more fatal than defiant Miltonesque sin. Satan is no atheist! Edmund certainly committed a very bad act: but it was forgivable because *everything* is forgivable- provided one wants to be forgiven. Susan had simply ceased to care.

Well, of course if we are going to have an allegory of the Christian Judgement Day, we should expect the relative proportions to be slightly different. Aren't there supposed to be more goats than sheep?

Originally Posted by Mr. Quickli

Why Susan? Well, it had to be somebody, and Susan was really the extra one. Peter (name no accident) was the High King/Viceroy/Vicar/ Pope of Aslanism. Lucy was always the Good One, the one whose belief was purest. Edmund- well, it would have blown the point of Vol 1 if he's condemned anyway in the end. That leaves Susan, the least interesting Pevensey anyway.

What an intriguing trinity you postulate: Peter/ Edmund/ Lucy. But who says that the moral/spiritual worth of a human being is determined by "interest", by charm, charisma, readerly appetite?

Fact still remains that in traditional Christianity, the Fall is the female's fault and so Lewis is perpetuating that moral vision of the female's failing. Just read a few Medieval Churchmen to get a flavour of the virulent excoriation of women that is part of social history of the faith. Lewis is by no means as misogynist as the Church Fathers but he unfortunately uses traditional notions of culpability to express his idea of falling away from faith.

Originally Posted by berry

Is he preparing for readers to believe all the historically received notions of Eve being the greater sinner, and of women being morally inferior and culpable for the fall, being the more deceived? Really, was he preconditioning girls to believing that they must cover their heads in church out of their responsibility for Eve's sin? And submit to the "churching" ceremony to cleanse themselves after childbirth before they can return to public church services?

Originally Posted by Mr. Wicki

Is this a deliberate strawman? Are you accusing Lewis of believing or advocating such snakehandler nonsense?

No. Yes. If you have a philosophy/theology that develops a schism between mind and body, between spiritual and material, then it's going to be a problem handling the very material question of procreation, especially if you have a story so dependent upon virgin birth. (Wasn't it you who asked about Danae's golden showers on a thread recently?)

Originally Posted by Mr. Quickli

However LR isn't about 'class social structure.'

Originally Posted by Bb

Precisely. And its view of an idyllic social organization without any strife, where there is clearly private ownership of property rather than communal ownership, provides the kind of silence which speaks volumes.

Originally Posted by WCH

I'd like to think you're not trolling here, but I equally wouldn't want to think you're serious.

In the first place, the Shire is intended to be Home: comfortable, familiar, a little childish, even if JRRT can't help a few puckish jabs at bourgeois mentality. (Strife, if without bloodshed, clearly does take place, from Frodo's mushroom-raids to the the Bilbo/S-B feud to the very existence of lawyers.) A great statewide commune would have been as alien as Carter's Mars, and required a great deal of explanation and delving into political economy that Tolkien plainly had no interest in doing. No 'Warwickshire village about the time of Queen Victoria's Diamond Jubilee' was remotely Communard!

In the second place, the notion that 'strife' is an inevitable result of private property and can be avoided only by communal ownership is a Marxist notion which not only would have been rejected by Tolkien, but also by the overwhelming majority of rational human beings. Why should he bother to be anything but silent about a fringe theory held only by a handful of people on the looney Left? The rest of us live in a world of property ownership. Again, as I posted monts ago: Tolkien wasn't writing a political novel.

You're right, he wasn't. But that still does not mean readers cannot discuss his choice to write an a-political story, particularly since he uses the theme of regained kingship but avoids some of the concommitant situations of monarchies. And, actually, I wasn't thinking at all about Marxist theory, but thinking about pre-agrarian or early agrarian cultures, or even Viking culture--Rohan?--when I was thinking about communal ownership, trying to 'place' just where Tolkien imagined the Shire in terms of human development. In Victorian times a man could not vote unless he owned property of a certain value--not sure what the laws were in Edwardian times--and given real estate in Old Blighty at the time that stipulation certainly caused some strife in terms of a lack of political power.

But even if we take The Shire as Home, which you very interestingly and imaginatively suggest, Tolkien's assumption--or is it yours?-- that Home is always so comfortable is . . . a political statement about that form of domestic organisation. And, if you are going to argue that The Shire is Home, then that tantalizingly suggests the Ring story is almost an allegory about not wanting to grow up, Frodo wanting to save the Shire and all. Was he a kind of Peter Pan, wanting to preserve that comfortable childhood, and when he found he couldn't, he just . . . was the opposite of Susan/Wendy.

I have no idea where I'm going with this, as it's late and I've been continually interrupted. . . . Thanks, pio, for those links. They must, alas, remain unread until after this last holiday weekend. I certainly hope that does not make me sound as frivolous as Susan.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hickli

Or rather shorthand for a Paris Hilton, a Britney Spears or an Anna Nicole Smith. Surely you're not asserting in some uber-Pagliesque way that bimbohood is the new postmodern feminism, are you?

Yes many people (well, women, men are after all only interested in intellectual pursuits aren't they? ) do have little interest in anything other than clothes and make-up and socialising. But the point Lewis makes is odious. There is nothing wrong in women (let's stick to it) being interested in these things, in fact it's perfectly ordinary and always has been - and I find it quite insulting that because I'm overly fond of handbags and enjoy reading about fashion in Grazia, some old professor in his dusty tweed suit thinks I'm at best 'silly' and at worst 'immoral'.

Had Lewis said that Susan had grown interested in little else than jackboots, knives and guns then he may have had a moral point to make, but there is nothing wrong in the harmless pursuit of the trappings of adult womanhood - I'm afraid that he did not see that such things as clothes and make-up are enjoyed by about 99% of women and there is absolutely no harm in that, even if their insistence that getting their lippie just so before going for a night out does make you half an hour late and give you something to moan about at length when you meet your pals in the pub.

I'm reminded of the saying 'typical man'.

It's rather as if someone has just spent ages and ages creating this beautiful (but quite twee) painting and then has got in a temper towards the end and dropped a blot of red paint on it.

Whatever, all the lengthy essays in the world to explain away this inkblot by Lewis only serve to make the excuses even more tortured. Why not just be done and say "Sorry, Miss, the dog ate my homework." I'd rather leave it that Lewis just didn't know what to do with a character he didn't like any more so he decided to write her out in a most unpleasant and dissmissive way, because the alternative, that she was in some way immoral just for doing what girls do, is quite disturbing and says a whole lot more about Lewis and his Victor Meldrew-ish attitude towards young women than it does about such young women.

Let's contrast the attitude of Lewis with that of Tolkien who cast no moral judgements on his own 'silly women' who clearly took huge pleasure in such trivialities as dancing and embroidery - in fact their indulging in 'silly' girlish things became heroic - Arwen's 'silly' embroidery was taken into battle in the form of Aragorn's inspiring standard; Luthien's 'silly' dancing managed to attract the love interest of Beren and we know the rest...

Tolkien was a man who knew a little more of what women were about, because he'd loved one from a young age and had a clutch of children with said woman; what's more he had even more contact with women in his professional life - due to being a married man he was permitted to be personal tutor to female students. He lived in a wider world than Lewis and you can tell by how he writes about his women. Sure, they're not the modern women that Pullman and Rowling write so wonderfully about (don't get me started on how Lyra and Hermione are marvellous...) but they aren't cloistered either. They do bad things, trivial things, and heroic things, but what's more, there's not a lot that the Tolkien fan must find excuses for...

Now excuse me while I go and put my face on.

[davem]

Now I'm wondering about Pullman's attitude to relationships - in HDM he has Lyra & Will get together & then immediately splits them up forever, & in an adaptation of one of his Sally Lockhart stories by the BBC over Christmas he has Sally get together with her lover, who immediately afterward gets killed in a fire! Does PP have a problem with his characters being together? Happily ever after doesn't seem to appeal to him...

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by davem

Now I'm wondering about Pullman's attitude to relationships - in HDM he has Lyra & Will get together & then immediately splits them up forever, & in an adaptation of one of his Sally Lockhart stories by the BBC over Christmas he has Sally get together with her lover, who immediately afterward gets killed in a fire! Does PP have a problem with his characters being together? Happily ever after doesn't seem to appeal to him...

Could say similar about Tolkien with his profusion of orphans There's quite likely something psychological about why writers choose their characters as they do, but in the case of Lyra and Sally, the loss of a love is simply part of the story. Without saying more about Lyra (spoilers, davem, spoilers! Tch), Sally has to be an unmarried mum as otherwise the plot of the third novel would not work - she is subject to some serious exploitation owing to her vulnerable place in Victorian society. What Pullman doesn't shirk on though is Love - the characters always experience Love, even if it is doomed!

[William Cloud Hicklin]

But even if we take The Shire as Home, which you very interestingly and imaginatively suggest, Tolkien's assumption--or is it yours?-- that Home is always so comfortable is . . . a political statement about that form of domestic organisation. And, if you are going to argue that The Shire is Home, then that tantalizingly suggests the Ring story is almost an allegory about not wanting to grow up, Frodo wanting to save the Shire and all. Was he a kind of Peter Pan, wanting to preserve that comfortable childhood, and when he found he couldn't

No, it's not a political statement: it's an emotional statement. "It was a hobbit-hole, and that means comfort:" you don't have to be a Freudian to see how womby it is. Tolkien was calling up his own nostalgia-gilded memories of the place where he was a little boy, with a mother and everything. Political matters weren't an issue for seven-year-old Ronald; and in the Shire he could sweep them away with a sort of 'if men were angels' sleight of hand: Hobbits apparently don't have or want any kind of government at all (it's not like the Mayor counts for anything). "Growing food and eating it took up most of their time."

But in the end of LR Frodo doesn't compare to Barrie's eternal boy PP at all. "You have grown, Halfling. You are both wise and cruel." Even the other Travellers might see returning as 'going back to sleep'; but Frodo is clearsighted enough to confront the awful reality: his mother has been raped (to push the Freudian thing rather too hard). Childhood always ends, whether you want it to or not.

However-- adults have homes too, you know.

(Incidentally, pre- and early agrarian societies were hardly some nonviolent Rousseauvian golden age of Noble Savages: recent research indicates that in late Paleolithic and Mesolithic societies 40 to 50% of the population died at the hands of their fellow humans. And the Vikings, my God: a sanguinary epoch of murder, outlawry and blood-feud- and that's just among themselves.)

If you have a philosophy/theology that develops a schism between mind and body, between spiritual and material, then it's going to be a problem handling the very material question of procreation

Which isn't remotely Lewis' philosophy/theology. He had no problem at all with the physical and material- a boisterous, active man who relished his pipe, his beer, his dinner and his friends. No aescetic he! What Lewis dstinguished was the important from the unimportant, which is a very different thing. (I should point out also that , based on The Four Loves, Lewis had a perfectly healthy attitude towards eros).

[Child of the 7th Age]

Does PP have a problem with his characters being together? Happily ever after doesn't seem to appeal to him...

Tell that part about "happily ever after" to Frodo! The poor hobbit doesn't even have the memory of such a relationship, unless we are to believe the many trash fanfictions that exist on the internet. Surely we can't condemn Pullman for his inability to supply a wholly happy ending given the concluding chapter of LotR. There is a "sacrifice" made in both books.

Like Lalwende, I have considerable admiration for Pullman's books, despite the fact that the author's world view is leagues from my own. I gobbled up each of the hardcovers when they first came out (still have the first printings with a signed bookplate tipped in.) Pullman is not on the same level as Tolkien, but I do see his work and that of Lewis as similar in many respects, and I enjoy both HDM and Narnia. (If I only enjoyed books that closely mirrored my own world view, I would probably only have a total of two or three to read!) However, I could do without Pullman's bombastic manner in interviews. He certainly does not have the public grace that Tolkien had.

The movie Golden Compass was a real disappointment. I don't expect to see later installments. But then the same thing happened with Tolkien. The earliest film adaptations were very flawed, and we had to wait a long time to see something better. OK, so maybe that latter statement is debatable! But the basic idea is that there's no sense judging a book on a film adaptation. Someday, somewhere, some filmaker will try again with Pullman, if the books continue to appeal to readers, and I believe they will.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

But the point Lewis makes is odious. There is nothing wrong in women (let's stick to it) being interested in these things, in fact it's perfectly ordinary and always has been - and I find it quite insulting that because I'm overly fond of handbags and enjoy reading about fashion in Grazia, some old professor in his dusty tweed suit thinks I'm at best 'silly' and at worst 'immoral'.

Had Lewis said that Susan had grown interested in little else than jackboots, knives and guns then he may have had a moral point to make, but there is nothing wrong in the harmless pursuit of the trappings of adult womanhood

I rather think you skipped or skimmed Davem's post above: what's wrong with Susan was that fripperies were ALL she cared about. Which rather counters your "harmless pusuit of the trappings of adult womanhood." I'll grant that Lewis slipped into something of the 'typical man' thing: but it wasn't his *point.* Whether it was lipstick or jackboots or stamp collecting, the essential point is that Susan had allowed the unimportant to consume her entire existence.

Certainly Lewis by this time had no problem at all with Joy, who was always nicely turned out- but who was about much, much more than merely the latest issue of Vogue. As are you.

There is a secondary point in there about 'growing up' and its connection to sexual maturity (or at least the perception thereof): but Lewis' point here is that sexual activity and mental/emotional maturity are not remotely the same thing; and while maturity and Narnia apparently cannot coexist, there is nothing mutually exclusive between maturity and the *memory* of Narnia: a fallacy which Susan fell into when she chose to jettison it in favor of the false 'grown-uppishness' of the Spears sisters.

[Child of the 7th Age]

William Cloud Hickli -

There is a much larger problem here that no one seems to be addressing. It is impossible to judge the depiction of Susan without considering the wider issue of how Lewis generally represents women. I enjoy Lewis immensely and have done so since childhood. I have many of his fiction and non-fiction books sitting on my shelf.

However, I love these works in spite of the way Lewis portrays female characters or even discusses women in some of his non-fiction works. (Passages in the Four Loves are also suggestive, but I don't have a copy at home.) I remember being taken aback even as a child when I read the Narnia tales and found out what happened to Susan. Something in my eleven year old head howled "unfair". I was the furthest kid you could imagine from lipstick and party invitations, but I wasn't quite sure that I could measure up to Lucy in spiritual depth and had a bad feeling that otherwise (like Susan) I would be thrown into a literary pit.

I had a similar queasy feeling when I encountered Jane in That Hideous Strength. I don't have a copy handy right now so I would have a hard time coming up with specific quotes, but I always had the feeling that Lewis simply took Ephesians 5: 22-25 concerning the headship of men over women and went at it from that viewpoint, with little subtlety. Others will feel very comfortable with this, but I do not.

It's only when you get to Till We Have Faces that Lewis seems capable of portraying females with some insight and depth. This is one of my favorite books. Orual is a compelling, complex character. There is no simple right or wrong here. We are shown how Orual grows in wisdom, self knowledge, and ability to love. It's my understanding that this was written late in Lewis's career....after he had met and loved Joy. That experience must have transformed him as I see an enormous difference between Orual (and even Psyche) and his earlier females. Lucy is a compelling personality, but there is no depth in her characterization or, in another direction, that of the later Susan. And I say this while acknowledging that there is a difference between writing a story for a juvenile or adult audience. Whatever Tolkien's personal views on the role of women (a subject for debate), I do not see this same simplicity in Tolkien's females that I do in those of Lewis. But Tolkien had the advantage of Edith and Priscilla for many long years.

[Lyta_Underhill]

This is something I've noticed in a lot of the best fantasy, that towards the finale the writer struggles, and sometimes just about 'loses' it. Tolkien did it, you can tell by the high falutin' language and the headlong rush of the narrative; Peake did it, with the sparse and weird third volume of Gormenghast; Rowling does it in the final volume of Potter which is seriously intense. Pullman does it too - he even loses his main protagonist somewhere along the way. What all of them have in common is that they have said things along the lines of they were 'trying to find out what happened'.

At the risk of lagging and taking off on an aside, I might address something that made me think in Lal's quoted post here: the inclusion of Mervyn Peake's Gormenghast "trilogy." I think this body of work is wrongly labeled thus, since Titus Alone is so very different from the other two preceding volumes and Gormenghast itself is conspicuously absent, as is the main (and most interesting) antagonist, Steerpike. Also, Peake was himself "fallen off" into the ravages of Parkinson's disease, which rendered him unable to finish his third volume definitively and coherently. The work we see is edited into shape by his wife, Maeve, and seems to reflect confusion of mind at work. Alas for Mervyn Peake, whose work I greatly admire!

The inclusion of Peake also put me in mind of the subversive mindset embodied by Pullman's Lyra Belacqua. While we are dazzled in Titus Groan and Gormenghast by the machinations of the careful villain Steerpike, we also see the development of Titus, himself a subversive character and original thinker. He is drawn to the Wild Girl, drawn away from the ages-old tradition represented by Gormenghast itself, drawn away from the rock of unchanging thought that, in Peake's case, seems to have represented the monarchy of Britain, but underneath this is also a hint that it might have included the "rock" of the established church as well. The clue comes in his ancillary work "Boy in Darkness," wherein the young Titus gets lost in the forest and meets archetypal animal characters who hold him captive. One, the Lamb, seems to represent acquiescence, a laying down before that which "is and always has been," an acceptance of his place as heir and the mindset that is required for him to become part of the unending "stones" of Gormenghast. Titus has what it takes to break away from tradition and to think for himself. We see that Steerpike, although he is clever and uses his vast knowledge to his advantage, is limited in this capacity, and he cannot think beyond the tradition and "stones" of Gormenghast. Titus goes beyond, and I think Peake wanted to explore this "beyond" in Titus Alone, but, alas, he himself went beyond before he could bring it to clarity for us readers.

In a sense, I get the hint that Pullman wishes to do this by the device of laying bare the veneer of the Church and the false gods it has raised to be the projections of its self-serving policy. This is an agenda, certainly, and it is rarely done perfectly; I don't think Pullman did it in a way that could separated his secondary world from the primary world he is criticising. But I admire someone who can illustrate this concept in a believable way, even if it does fall short of perfection.

I think the reason I raise Tolkien above all these authors--Pullman, Lewis, Peake and the rest--is that he evokes a delicate and fragile realm that cannot be directly looked into--Faerie comes alive in that "corner of the eye," "edge of the forest" way that keeps Samwise forever looking for Elves in the Shire in his early days. Tolkien may have his own "agenda," but he is not stuffing down anyone's throat. His world, in my opinion, is the finest for his light touch upon it. For all its "high-falutin'" language in Return of the King, the very richness of Middle Earth transcends these imperfections. I guess maybe this post should be "why Tolkien is my favorite author," eh? I am not even going to get into the Lewis thing right now!

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Thank you Lyta. This is a point which Tolkien, as so often, expressed felicitously; "the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author."

I can't really concur in "towards the finale the writer struggles, and sometimes just about 'loses' it. Tolkien did it, you can tell by the high falutin' language and the headlong rush of the narrative". If by 'finale' you mean the denoument, from coronation to Scouring and Havens, it's quite the reverse of headlong: almost too drawn-out. If you mean the Fall of Sauron, again we get the latter part of Book V and the whole Passion of Frodo Baggins setting it up. And I think that Tolkien's skill with "high-falutin' language" demonstrably increased with practice, from hit-or-miss in Book I (the Goldberry passages are excruciating) to the masterful exchange between Eowyn and the Witch-king, and Denethor's speeches of near-Shakespearean subtlety and grandeur.

Nor- and this is key- does Tolkien's many-headed finale ever become confused or lose clarity. Titus Alone and, to a lesser extent AS (and all the Dune books after the first) by contrast induce a massive ***??? on first (and often subsequent) reading.

[davem]

Its a long time since I read TLB, but I have to admit that when I heard of Susan's fate I didn't feel that Lewis was attacking either feminism or 'shallow' women, I just felt very sad that she had missed out. Maybe that was Lewis intention - that his readers would feel that way & not make the same choice she did. Susan 'grows up' & consigns Narnia to the Nursery - exactly the attitude Tolkien condemns in OFS. Some people do make that choice & surely it would have been dishonest if Lewis hadn't acknowledged that via one of his characters - &, as the letter I quoted shows, he never stated that Susan had lost her chance of entering Aslan's country, & left open the possibility that she could find her own way there one day.

Don't know how different this is from Boromir's fate - he misses out on his chance of coming through the war & living in peace & happiness through pride, but we see that as a tragedy. Surely Lewis has the right to 'sacrifice' one of his characters to bring home to his readers the danger of what he considered a 'sin', while leaving open the possibility of her salvation?

[Gwathagor]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hickli

I rather think you skipped or skimmed Davem's post above: what's wrong with Susan was that fripperies were ALL she cared about. Which rather counters your "harmless pusuit of the trappings of adult womanhood." I'll grant that Lewis slipped into something of the 'typical man' thing: but it wasn't his *point.* Whether it was lipstick or jackboots or stamp collecting, the essential point is that Susan had allowed the unimportant to consume her entire existence.

Certainly Lewis by this time had no problem at all with Joy, who was always nicely turned out- but who was about much, much more than merely the latest issue of Vogue. As are you.

There is a secondary point in there about 'growing up' and its connection to sexual maturity (or at least the perception thereof): but Lewis' point here is that sexual activity and mental/emotional maturity are not remotely the same thing; and while maturity and Narnia apparently cannot coexist, there is nothing mutually exclusive between maturity and the *memory* of Narnia: a fallacy which Susan fell into when she chose to jettison it in favor of the false 'grown-uppishness' of the Spears sisters.

Well said.

[Morwen]

There is a much larger problem here that no one seems to be addressing. It is impossible to judge the depiction of Susan without considering the wider issue of how Lewis generally represents women. I enjoy Lewis immensely and have done so since childhood. I have many of his fiction and non-fiction books sitting on my shelf.

However, I love these works in spite of the way Lewis portrays female characters or even discusses women in some of his non-fiction works. (Passages in the Four Loves are also suggestive, but I don't have a copy at home.) I remember being taken aback even as a child when I read the Narnia tales and found out what happened to Susan. Something in my eleven year old head howled "unfair". I was the furthest kid you could imagine from lipstick and party invitations, but I wasn't quite sure that I could measure up to Lucy in spiritual depth and had a bad feeling that otherwise (like Susan) I would be thrown into a literary pit.

It is Susan who rejects Narnia. And since she's the one doing the rejecting what exactly is unfair about the situation?

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hickli

I rather think you skipped or skimmed Davem's post above: what's wrong with Susan was that fripperies were ALL she cared about. Which rather counters your "harmless pusuit of the trappings of adult womanhood." I'll grant that Lewis slipped into something of the 'typical man' thing: but it wasn't his *point.* Whether it was lipstick or jackboots or stamp collecting, the essential point is that Susan had allowed the unimportant to consume her entire existence.

Certainly Lewis by this time had no problem at all with Joy, who was always nicely turned out- but who was about much, much more than merely the latest issue of Vogue. As are you.

There is a secondary point in there about 'growing up' and its connection to sexual maturity (or at least the perception thereof): but Lewis' point here is that sexual activity and mental/emotional maturity are not remotely the same thing; and while maturity and Narnia apparently cannot coexist, there is nothing mutually exclusive between maturity and the *memory* of Narnia: a fallacy which Susan fell into when she chose to jettison it in favor of the false 'grown-uppishness' of the Spears sisters.

Lewis makes a judgement which is entirely a value judgement based wholly on his own personal values. There is nothing inherently wrong or immoral with someone who chooses to focus on something which he might view as 'trivial' such as fashion. Why, there will be more than a handful of Downs members who focus their whole lives around Hobbits and Elves, and while it might not be entirely healthy to have a fixation on one thing, it isn't wrong in the slightest.

What's more, Lewis chose to pick on something peculiar to women, particularly to young women. It is in fact healthy for a young woman to have an interest in her social life and how she looks, it is part of her growing up. I think that had Lewis been in a proper relationship earlier he might have accepted such 'fripperies' as part and parcel of life and ignored them.

Child brings up the Four Loves which also contains some objectionable stuff - namely that women and men cannot be friends as they do not share the same types of interests. Well excuse me, but I have always had male friends, one since I was 13. He once said he liked nothing so much as the sound of 'adult male laughter', presumably women's laughter being too shrill and cackling? I believe he also had a pop at women's magazines too, and said some things about how the man should be head of the household (yeah, riiight ) but someone more inclined to delve deep into Lewis will have to clarify, I'm afraid trying to read Narnia left me scarred for life. I might have a poke around at some time if I'm feeling girded...

So, it's not just 'the problem of Susan' that demonstrates he had 'issues', stemming from some dysfunctional (non-) relationships. And I'd be happy to leave it at that, but we keep getting the apologetics for him. A writer I do like and who was a sexist pig was Larkin, but nobody tries to deny that he had sexist (and racist) tendencies - why try to 'cover up' for Lewis? That is the point that sticks the most.

He was also well known around Oxford for being curmudgeonly on some issues, he certainly was not the saintly figure of Shadowlands (that is all the doing of the marvellous Hopkins). His spat with Betjeman and his 'effete' friends is exemplary of the personality of Lewis, and the story of the tea party with Louis MacNeice is hilarious as the young aesthetes forced Lewis (who was all manly and talked of giving people 'a smack') to discuss lace curtains and so forth. This whole hatred thing has amused me for some time - and the great irony is that the parents giving their children the regulation box set of Narnia to read will likely know more than a few Betjeman lines off by heart as he's Britain's best loved 'modern' poet.

Lewis in fact might be wholly improved by acknowledging his darker side and stepping for a moment outside the doors of what Betjeman dubbed "the church of St CS Lewis". I always think it doesn't do us any favours to be instantly dismissive of criticism of Tolkien and it ought to be taken onboard and examined honestly - time to do that with Lewis and it makes no intellectual sense to dismiss someone like Pullman out of hand just for daring to be critical.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hickli

No, it's not a political statement: it's an emotional statement. "It was a hobbit-hole, and that means comfort:" you don't have to be a Freudian to see how womby it is. Tolkien was calling up his own nostalgia-gilded memories of the place where he was a little boy, with a mother and everything. Political matters weren't an issue for seven-year-old Ronald; and in the Shire he could sweep them away with a sort of 'if men were angels' sleight of hand.

Yes, this is precisely my point. Tolkien's Shire is gilded with nostalgia, in contrast to some very non-nostalgic Victorian views of womby things. Pullman's Dust falls over all, but it doesn't gild things. His fantasy is all the more intriguing because it isn't rosy.

(Incidentally, pre- and early agrarian societies were hardly some nonviolent Rousseauvian golden age of Noble Savages: recent research indicates that in late Paleolithic and Mesolithic societies 40 to 50% of the population died at the hands of their fellow humans. And the Vikings, my God: a sanguinary epoch of murder, outlawry and blood-feud- and that's just among themselves.)

Again, you are mischaracterising my comments, this time as Rousseauvian rather than Marxist. Careful now. The traditional view of Vikings has recently come in for some rethinking, particularly as that notion of them comes down to us from those who fought with them. Rome, after all, had a vested interest in explaining just how and why she was conquered.

Which isn't remotely Lewis' philosophy/theology. He had no problem at all with the physical and material- a boisterous, active man who relished his pipe, his beer, his dinner and his friends. No aescetic he! What Lewis dstinguished was the important from the unimportant, which is a very different thing. (I should point out also that , based on The Four Loves, Lewis had a perfectly healthy attitude towards eros).

So Lewis can have his pipe, his beer, his dinner and his friends, but Susan may not because he determined that she was placing too great a value on her friends, her parties, her salon. Role playing kings and queens in Narnia might not have been all that different from role playing drama queen wannabe--in fact, it might have 'preconditioned' Susan to enjoying stylish things and powerful people.

Thank you, Child, for mentioning Till We have Faces. It's a hard book to find (I'm always too lazy to special order) but I'll keep looking for it.

[Gwathagor]

I believe, Lalwende and Bethberry, that you are letting your strong dislike of Lewis's curmudgeonly tendencies overwhelm and misdirect your understanding of this particular part of TLB.

The point of the lipstick and invitations bit isn't to condemn the proper use of those things, but rather the deeper problem Susan has, of which the abuse of said items is merely the symptom. This makes a great deal of sense considering the context of the previous books: the apparent childishness of Narnia contrasted with a false, silly grown-upishness. This is a contrast that is made fairly regularly throughout the series (Edmund vs. Pevensies, Peter vs. Lucy in "Prince Caspian", Susan vs. Siblings, etc.)

[davem]

I think this section from the Introduction to Lewis' allegory 'The Great Divorce' sums up where he is coming from with Susan:

I do not think that all who choose wrong roads will perish; but their rescue
consists in being put back on the right road. A wrong sum can be put right: but
only by going back till you find the error and working it afresh from that point,
never by simply going on. Evil can be undone, but it cannot “develop” into good.
Time does not heal it. The spell must be unwound, bit by bit, “with backward
mutters of dissevering power” – or else not. It is still “either-or.” If we insist on
keeping Hell (or even earth) we shall not see Heaven: if we accept Heaven we
shall not be able to retain even the smallest and most intimate souvenirs of Hell. I
believe, to be sure, that any [person] who reaches Heaven will find out what he
abandoned (even plucking out his right eye) was precisely nothing; that the
kernel of wheat he was really seeking even in his most depraved wishes will be
there, beyond expectation, waiting for him in “the High Countries.”

Now, you may agree or disagree with that, but that's what Lewis believed & I think, as a consequence one can see Susan's (temporary?) fate as inevitable. Susan's fate was a direct consequence of Lewis' worldview.

For myself, I find most of Lewis stuff unreadable - though there are some jewels scattered throughout.....

[William Cloud Hicklin]

The traditional view of Vikings has recently come in for some rethinking, particularly as that notion of them comes down to us from those who fought with them. Rome, after all, had a vested interest in explaining just how and why she was conquered.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. First off, Rome (in the West) was centuries gone by the time of the first Vikings (traditionally Lindisfarne, 793)

In the second place, the portrait I referred to was the Norsemen's *own*, drawn from their quasi-historical sagas, and from Heimskringla. They were barely-concealed *proud* of their killers, even when they couldn't pay their weregeld and had to be outlawed. Reading what the Vikings wrote about *themselves* and their interpersonal relationships puts me in mind of nobody so much as LA street gangs: "show me respect or I'll put an axe in yo' ***."

This is not to say that the Vikings did not have admirable qualities: at least those qualities valued in a warrior culture- honor, loyalty, courage, generosity. But it was, unapologetically, a warrior culture, which regarded rapine, pillage, plunder and bloodshed as praiseworthy things and the true measure of a man.

Mind you, I *like* the Vikings. But while we can admire their seacraft and artwork and many other things, we shouldn't forget that that most ancient of parliaments, the Althing, was followed by the 'weapontake:' the men taking up their arms again after they left the assembly. And it's hardly a puzzle why no weapons were allowed inside......

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Gwathagor

I believe, Lalwende and Bethberry, that you are letting your strong dislike of Lewis's curmudgeonly tendencies overwhelm and misdirect your understanding of this particular part of TLB.

The point of the lipstick and invitations bit isn't to condemn the proper use of those things, but rather the deeper problem Susan has, of which the abuse of said items is merely the symptom. This makes a great deal of sense considering the context of the previous books: the apparent childishness of Narnia contrasted with a false, silly grown-upishness. This is a contrast that is made fairly regularly throughout the series (Edmund vs. Pevensies, Peter vs. Lucy in "Prince Caspian", Susan vs. Siblings, etc.)

One of the problems is that items such lipstick and stockings are heavily symbolic of adult female sexuality (along with high heels, glossy hair etc) and what Lewis is saying is that an interest in her own sexuality is "silly". That's both unhealthy and wrong. There is sometimes a tendency of fathers to fail to come to terms with their own daughters' growing up by preventing them (or attempting to prevent them, as they don't know what the girl is sneaking out in her school bag ) from doing such things as experimenting with make-up and clothes, in an unconscious attempt to keep them in childhood. And you do get adult men who have issues with their own partners/wives getting dressed up as they find it threatening - this even appears in entire cultures where women are expected to wear veils and so on. In our own western culture you can find this in the fashion industry where frailty and the look of adolescence is preferred over the look of a real, healthy, full grown woman. It is all to do with power; if women are kept in a state of childhood they pose no threat both in terms of their own potential power or the power other men could gain by 'stealing' them.

So there is very clearly a message about men's power over women in what Lewis says. The boys are allowed to grow and do 'manly' things, but are the girls allowed to grow and do 'womanly' things?

There's your Women's Studies lecture for the day

And all this business Lewis says about how grown ups cannot accept fantasy is nonsense. It is vital that people grow up, lest they become like Michael Jackson! Thank goodness Joy came along and shook Lewis out of his closeted little males only world!

[Gwathagor]

Like I said.

[obloquy]

In our own western culture you can find this in the fashion industry where frailty and the look of adolescence is preferred over the look of a real, healthy, full grown woman. It is all to do with power; if women are kept in a state of childhood they pose no threat both in terms of their own potential power or the power other men could gain by 'stealing' them.

Or maybe young, thin girls are actually more attractive than what you call "real, healthy, full grown women." Out of curiosity, do you suppose there's a single mastermind dictating the repression of powerful women, or is it a syndicate with an official charter and handshake? Then again, maybe fashion isn't exactly "all to do with power." Maybe fashion is fashion, and the struggle of women seeking more independence and influence has a little more to do with thousands of years of near-universal patriarchal tradition than what designers are selling to anorexic celebrities.

By the way, guys rule and girls drool.

[Eönwë]

Well, lots of authors "borrow" from others. Imean, at least Tolkien's is done discreetly, or at least, a lot of his books are his creation (but it does have a bit of a biblical connection).

But look at people like Christopher Paolini, he writes about King called Hrothgar. That is just Beowulf in disguise, not to mention his elves and what he calls urgals but sound verey similar to orcs.

And people like Terry Pratchett just take ideas from everywhere...

But thats just how life is as an author... *wink wink*

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by obloquy

Or maybe young, thin girls are actually more attractive than what you call "real, healthy, full grown women." Out of curiosity, do you suppose there's a single mastermind dictating the repression of powerful women, or is it a syndicate with an official charter and handshake? Then again, maybe fashion isn't exactly "all to do with power." Maybe fashion is fashion, and the struggle of women seeking more independence and influence has a little more to do with thousands of years of near-universal patriarchal tradition than what designers are selling to anorexic celebrities.

By the way, guys rule and girls drool.

You're dicing with death there, you'll have half the female Downs membership going "Tch"

Though to be serious, this argument about the link between fashion and power can actually be seen in history. I know not many historians are interested in what styles of frock the lasses wore and when (being that guns and swords and planes and stuff are more interesting - including to me) but there is a clear correlation between styles of dress and attitudes towards women. To take a recent example, the later 1940s saw a return to fitted, corsetted, and impractical styles just as women went back to their kitchen sinks to clear the factory jobs for returning men from war. But I shall not bore you with any more lecturing as that's getting right off the point

Getting right back to the issues Pullman has with Tolkien, the worst that can be said about it is that Pullman just doesn't find Tolkien 'serious' enough, and I have to say this is down at least to some essential differences between what the two men hoped to achieve.

On the one hand Tolkien was working from a basis of epic, heroic literature such as Beowulf and the sagas, at times quite dispassionate in that they do not examine what is happening in the characters' heads; whereas Pullman works more from the intense poetry of Milton and Blake which examine psychological matters and personal spiritual viewpoints.

One of the criticisms of Tolkien is that his characters are one-dimensional - this is because we are used to modern fiction which gets into the heads of characters, not to sagas which simply tell the tale. A lot of people do not realise that like in a Viking saga, in Tolkien's world we learn about the character and their motivation from the words he/she says or the deeds he/she does. Contrast that with Pullman, very much the modern writer, who uses the authorial voice, not the character voice, to tell us why Lyra wants to do this or that. And then go and read some Blake and you will find just the same thing.

So it boils down to influences and by extension, taste. Tolkien liked one thing, Pullman likes another. Tolkien, it must be noted, also "cordially disliked allegory", a particular form of writing in which the authorial voice is scrawled in red pen all over the page, and the form Lewis and Pullman have both chosen, to a certain extent; Tolkien didn't like Narnia and I think he also wouldn't have liked HDM, for artistic reasons.

Something else is important and this is that what Tolkien created was more than a 'mere' book. LotR is a precision crafted narrative, a world with just about everything it needs built in and added on. That is what you can get if someone is allowed most of their adult life to create one book - perfection. You certainly do not find this with Lewis and Pullman - much as I find HDM dazzling, it is full of errors and incongruous stuff, things which just don't 'fit' and narrative bad choices. The same is true of Narnia (together with the clunky nursery style and Pigwiggenry I find tedious). And Harry Potter. All these were conventional novels, churned out relatively quickly in comparison to Rings, which wasn't really a novel in any conventional sense but a perfect representation/reproduction of Tolkien's alternate world.

So is Pullman actually objecting to something which is quite outside normal literary conventions anyway, when he calls Tolkien boring?

[obloquy]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

You're dicing with death there, you'll have half the female Downs membership going "Tch"

Though to be serious, this argument about the link between fashion and power can actually be seen in history. I know not many historians are interested in what styles of frock the lasses wore and when (being that guns and swords and planes and stuff are more interesting - including to me) but there is a clear correlation between styles of dress and attitudes towards women. To take a recent example, the later 1940s saw a return to fitted, corsetted, and impractical styles just as women went back to their kitchen sinks to clear the factory jobs for returning men from war. But I shall not bore you with any more lecturing as that's getting right off the point

I don't see the correlation. I see a general atmosphere of conservatism that leads women to dress conservatively, and to carry out a certain traditional role while the men resume their old jobs.

Modern fashion has nothing to do with power. Most fashion designers are either women or gay men: where's their motivation to keep women from looking powerful?

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Gwathagor

I believe, Lalwende and Bethberry, that you are letting your strong dislike of Lewis's curmudgeonly tendencies overwhelm and misdirect your understanding of this particular part of TLB.

The point of the lipstick and invitations bit isn't to condemn the proper use of those things, but rather the deeper problem Susan has, of which the abuse of said items is merely the symptom. This makes a great deal of sense considering the context of the previous books: the apparent childishness of Narnia contrasted with a false, silly grown-upishness. This is a contrast that is made fairly regularly throughout the series (Edmund vs. Pevensies, Peter vs. Lucy in "Prince Caspian", Susan vs. Siblings, etc.)

Speaking for myself, I don't think the difficulty lies in my 'strong dislike . . . which misdirects [my] understanding of TLB."

The difficulty lies in how very, very far Lewis falls from the concept and understanding of spirituality which can be found in other writers and other people of more enlarged grace, hope, and charity.

[Gwathagor]

You won't find very many authors with more charity and compassion than Lewis.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by obloquy

I don't see the correlation. I see a general atmosphere of conservatism that leads women to dress conservatively, and to carry out a certain traditional role while the men resume their old jobs.

Modern fashion has nothing to do with power. Most fashion designers are either women or gay men: where's their motivation to keep women from looking powerful?

You're wrong, thus proving fashion is indeed a ladies' thing

Originally Posted by Bb

The difficulty lies in how very, very far Lewis falls from the concept and understanding of spirituality which can be found in other writers and other people of more enlarged grace, hope, and charity.

Yes. Lewis instead gave us a kind of begrudging grace, and a strictly rationed hope. This is why Tolkien stomps all over Lewis as he just didn't bring that stuff into it - you get the sense that even Gollum got something in the end.

[Folwren]

Tolkien may have been correct about a lot of things, but if he 'stomps all over Lewis' (I know you meant Lewis' writings and I took it as such), then he was not correct in that opinion.

Look. So far as I am concerned, I actually admire Lewis more than any other author that I have ever read, and that includes Tolkien. All this argument about whether or not his protrayal of Susan and what it meant is right or wrong or stupid or whatever is very, very shallow, and doesn't really belong here on the Barrow Downs. People - you're better than this. I believe that all of you who are putting Lewis down because of this issue are smarter than you're making yourself look right now.

If you want a true look at what Lewis believed, read his other books - Mere Christianity, The Great Divorce, Miracles, The Screwtape Letters (those are probably the most pertitent to this conversation), even Till We Have Faces...

[Lalwendë]

I've nothing wrong with Lewis being a bit sexist etc. As I've said, many other writers also have their PC failings but it doesn't stop me liking them if I find their writing good. However, I get a little fed up with the apologies for Lewis which don't wash and would find discussion of him and his work much more interesting if people did not blindly leap to the defence.

Note I'm not the only one who thinks this, many greater minds than mine share this opinion, including Betjeman, who personally knew the man rather too well. And as we're here to discuss books (I'm quite sure Lewis was as nice as anyone, long as you weren't cluttering up the snug of the Bird and Baby with a WI meeting :P), then my disappointment with Narnia is also shared with none other than one Professor Tolkien. I don't care how smart or not I'm making myself look when I share such good company

[Folwren]

Lal, if this should be taken to PM, that's fine. But how on earth is Lewis sexist? And what other 'etc' stuff are you hinting at?

And I have not been apologizing for Lewis. He doesn't need apologizing for. I might have to explain for him, but in no way will it be an apology.