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.

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by inked

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

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................

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

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]

Originally Posted by inked

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

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

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...e_universe.pdf

http://filmchatblog.blogspot.com/200...ed-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/s...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]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

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.

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]

Originally Posted by inked

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.

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]

Originally Posted by inked

.

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................

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...

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

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

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.

[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."