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

[GrayMouser]

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

Pullman on Tolkien:

His story is a rival to the narratives put forward by two earlier Oxford writers, J.R.R. Tolkien’s “The Lord of the Rings” and C.S. Lewis’s “The Chronicles of Narnia”. Pullman loathes the way the children in Narnia are killed in a car-crash. “I dislike his Narnia books because of the solution he offers to the great questions of human life: is there a God, what is the purpose, all that stuff, which he really does engage with pretty deeply, unlike Tolkien who doesn’t touch it at all. ‘The Lord of the Rings’ is essentially trivial. Narnia is essentially serious, though I don’t like the answer Lewis comes up with. If I was doing it at all, I was arguing with Narnia. Tolkien is not worth arguing with”

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

As for Narnia - I've expressed my detestation for that series on several occasions and at length, so I won't say very much about it here, except to note something that some commentators miss when lumping Lewis and Tolkien together, which is this: that Tolkien was a Catholic, for whom the basic issues of life were not in question, because the Church had all the answers. So nowhere in 'The Lord of the Rings' is there a moment's doubt about those big questions. No-one is in any doubt about what's good or bad; everyone knows where the good is, and what to do about the bad. Enormous as it is, TLOTR is consequently trivial. Narnia, on the other hand, is the work of a Protestant - and an Ulster Protestant at that, for whom the individual interaction with the Bible and with God was a matter of daily struggle and endless moral questioning. That's the Protestant tradition. So in Narnia the big questions are urgent and compelling and vital: is there a God? Who is it? How can I recognise him? What must I do to be good? I profoundly disagree with the answers that Lewis offers - in fact, as I say, I detest them - but Narnia is a work of serious religious engagement in a way that TLOTR could never be.

BTW, got both of these quotes originally from here:

http://maryvictrix.wordpress.com/200...izing-tolkien/

[inked]

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

[The Gaffer]

Groovy quotes, GM.

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

[Earniel]

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

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

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

[The Telcontarion]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

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

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

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

I say ditto to that...

[The Telcontarion]

Originally Posted by inked

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

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

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

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

So nowhere in 'The Lord of the Rings' is there a moment's doubt about those big questions. No-one is in any doubt about what's good or bad; everyone knows where the good is, and what to do about the bad. Enormous as it is, TLOTR is consequently trivial.

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

Sounds like an inconsequential author griping at his betters.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

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

Yes, and Faramir who wanted to take the ring!

[hectorberlioz]

I totally agree with CH. Especially the last paragraph.

Gotta run! (Class in 20 mins!)

[GrayMouser]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...n21130448/pg_9

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

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

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

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

[hectorberlioz]

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

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

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

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

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

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

[brownjenkins]

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

Pullman is just grumpy.

[hectorberlioz]

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

[inked]

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

http://www.marshillaudio.org/resourc...AJ-49-Wood.mp3

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

[Varnafindë]

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

[Earniel]

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

Spam post and spammer deleted.

[brownjenkins]

You mean this topic, or just inked in general?

[inked]

Good one, BJ!

[Varnafindë]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

You mean this topic, or just inked in general?

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

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

[Midge]

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

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

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

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