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

[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.