More puffery from Pullman

[dreamflower]

Here's some more of Phillip Pullman's *opinions* on the great JRRT (courtesy of rec.arts.books.tolkien):


> The following, forwarded without permission, was posted by Philip
> Pullman on the Child_Lit email list hosted at Rutgers University. I
> thought it might be of interest since it's his own defence of what he
> said:
>
> "I see that some reported words of mine have annoyed Tolkien fans. Well,
> just for the record, I said almost everything I wanted to say about
> Tolkien in the article "The Republic of Heaven" in The Horn Book
> Magazine, November/December 2001. One other thing has occurred to me
> since then, and it's to do with his style. At its best it is plain,
> vivid, and muscular, but at its worst it's like an impressionable
> Edwardian schoolboy's idea of great writing - a fin-de-siecle
> preciousness, a ponderous solemnity, a fake archaism in which, as
> pointed out by someone recently, backwards everything is said. I don't
> think he ever came to terms with the twentieth century, and modernism in
> literature, James Joyce and Virginia Woolf and Ernest Hemingway, might
> as well not have existed for him. He remained that turn-of-the-century
> schoolboy intoxicated by nostalgia for a world that had long gone, and
> for a fustian style of prose that had long ceased to be able to say
> anything that didn't smell of mothballs. And that, I maintain, is a
> serious problem for a writer trying to tackle serious subjects, and for
> a readership trying to defend him.
>
> Philip Pullman"

******
And now my rant:


Pullman is such an ignorant fool. But to be so arrongant with it just irritates me. He seems to feel that "speaking forsoothly" has no place in anything written in "modern times". I agree that it sometimes is done badly--but never by JRRT, who knew *exactly* how to use language, archaic or otherwise. I think perhaps it is a shame that there have been a few generations who have grown up not really understanding archaic language because it's avoided as irrelevant. Probably in another generation, Shakespeare will have to be translated for students to be able to read it. It burns me up to think that young people are not given credit for having a brain or two.

When I was in the fifth grade (10 years old, for non-Americans) I first read Howard Pyle's Robin Hood. I loved the archaic language. Like LotR would a few years later, it transported me to another time and place. This is NOT a Bad Thing! for heaven's sake!
****
Okay, rant over. Thanks.

Comments

[rabidsamfan.livejournal.com]

Pullman's got his head in a very dark place, doesn't he?

For one thing, as you say, when we are never exposed to complex language we become unable to understand it.

For the other, Tolkien reserved inverted sentence order, for the most part, to dialogue spoken by people who were not native speakers of Westron - Gimli and the Rohirrim, mainly, or to poetry or people who were making ceremonial kinds of speeches. It's a very deliberate thing.

Pfft!

[grey-wonderer.livejournal.com]

"Pullman, a Man and His Ego", would make a nice book title don't you think. Someone very limited who only uses small, modern, words, like drip, idiot, jerk, bone-head, etc. would have to write it. Sounds like a very bad case of sour grapes to me.

[elasg.livejournal.com]

I have to wonder why this man is bitching. I don't particularly care if Tolkien wrote in an archaic style - I happen to like it - and it was a style that he adopted almost as a signature. I perhaps don't see the inherent merit in modernism. To me, it shows that a reader has a greater intellect if he/she can read and understand an old-fashioned style than if he/she is limited to purely modern publications. In my not so humble opinion, very few of the 'modern' works are worth reading, and being as we are both simply expressing personal opinions, mine carries as much weight as Mr. Pullman's. I'd rather value my fluency in outmoded styles – I am going to find much more interesting stuff reading them than in reading the garbage that is being scraped off literary circles today.

[dreamflower]

A very dark place indeed. What's so irritating is that he seems to want to put everyone else's head in there with him.

I can deal with someone not *liking* JRRT's work--that is, after all, a matter of taste, and some folks simply don't have the taste for something that rich and complex. But to be so pompous about it...*GAH*spt*ptooey*!

[dreamflower]

*snort* I'll keep that title in mind if I should ever get the urge to write a paper about pretentious, pompous prats.

[dreamflower]

Why is he bitching? First of all, because he has it in for JRRT and for his friend CS Lewis, and loves to tear them down. Second of all, because it gets him some cheap publicity to be shooting at the Author of the Century (never mind that his target is dead and can't shoot back--the man's obviously got no fortitude, as well as being a jerk.)

As to JRRT's style, I have heard even a few of his admirers who find it difficult, I love it myself, especially the wide variation he shows even in his archaism--the archaism of the Elves is different from that of the Rohirrim which is also different than that of the Gondorians.

But to say that modern stuff is better just because it's modern is the mark of someone who has no depth, and mistakes all the grittiness and angst and tawdriness of most modern stuff for substance.

I shouldn't let it get to me, I suppose, but as I said JRRT can't shoot back from the grave.

[slightlytookish]

His analysis of Modern lit is completely off base. Not all writers were as experimental as Joyce or Woolfe, etc. Some used history/myth quite freely in their work - Yeats did. One of the interesting things about Modern and Contemporary lit is that there are so many different styles. Why would he want everyone to sound the same?

Pullman sounds like a very bitter, jealous man. I'm sure that I am not the only person who has only heard of him because of his Tolkien-bashing, and if this is the way he wants to make a name for himself then I feel very sorry for him because he is a very Silly Person :P

[dreamflower]

I suppose I ought to feel sorry for him as well. It is rather pitiful for someone not to be able to appreciate JRRT. But I'm afraid I'm more like Sam than like Frodo, and Pullman is a Gollum whose Precious is his own self.

[elasg.livejournal.com]

LOL!

Actually, I think this guy is doing a great job of shooting - himself in the foot! Your comment But to say that modern stuff is better just because it's modern is the mark of someone who has no depth is what I was trying to say (only you did so better, ;)) though from my reading of just this snippet, he gave no reason that I could see to back up his claim that it was.

In my personal experience, it isn't and so his claim that he prefers modern writing tells me that 1) we have very different taste and 2) I'm probably not going to agree with anything he says. End of story.

I have never heard of this person, but I stay away from literary critics as a rule. Unless they are writing anything entertaining in itself, I see no use for their services. What one loves, the other hates and my reaction generally is different from any of them.

I must agree with you also on JRRT's various tones. They might be all archaic, but they differ. There is his 'hobbit voice' - countrified and comfortable, his 'elf voice' - grand and mysterious but joyful, and the one I like to call his 'epic voice' - most visible at the end of ROTK - where he writes as if he is penning a legend of old (and which I love). Of all of them, I find the epic voice the easiest to mimic but it is also one that can appear pompous if you aren't very careful. JRRT was never pompous and his epic voice always stirs me. (might be the subject matter too... LOL!)

[dreamflower]

Pullman's a novelist. He wrote a "fantasy trilogy" (ha! wonder where he got *that* idea!) with an interesting setting and premise. But it was a very depressing read, with no emotional payoff for the reading time invested. What is worse, is it's supposedly marketed towards "young people" (whom we all know, of course, need to read something dark and depressing!). I'm just glad that I only checked them out from the library and never put any money in his pocket. I'll never read anything else he writes, that's for sure.

He supposedly wrote the stories as an "antidote" to what he considered the proselytizing of JRRT and CS Lewis, and he has generally indicated contempt for people who read fantasy. I did not know anything about him when I read his books to begin with, but having read them, his opinions do not surprise me.

[elendiari22.livejournal.com]

Pullman is a lackwitted fool if he thinks that there are no people out there who appreciate archaic language. Sheesh, I found my major because of Tolkien! Pullman should do some serious reading before he bothers to talk: his entire genre was influenced by Tolkien, and not everyone thinks that Woolfe and Hemingway were the greatest things on the planet. This is definitely a case of know-what-you're-talking-about-before-you-bash-it. Sigh.

[elasg.livejournal.com]

LOL! You have apparently paid him more attention than I did. Why would someone need an antidote to Tolkien? I never found him preachy (in fact, refreshingly not preachy). C.S. Lewis, yes, but not Tolkien. There are concepts even in doctrines that we don't adhere to that are worth considering. *Shakes head*

I guess some people are just angry and contrary all the time. I've been known to be that way myself at times (big surprise there, eh?) but there comes a time when you have to realize the whole rest of the world doesn't necessarily agree with you.

[maripo5a.livejournal.com]

I liked Pullman's books, but I do disagree with his analysis of Tolkien. It does sound rather pissy and, well, odd to me. I agree with others here who have said, Why is modernism inherently better? Anyway. I love Orson Scott Card's books, too, but I have read some interviews that just made me cringe... I guess I will enjoy Pullman's books and avoid his polemic. :-)

[dreamflower]

"...his entire genre was influenced by Tolkien,"

I think that is actually what his problem is. He resents the fact that JRRT built the sandbox he is playing in. Instead of being grateful for the foundation he was given, he tries to knock out its underpinnings. Of course, this just shows what a fool he truly is.

[dreamflower]

"pissy" LOL! That's the exact word!
I am afraid I did not like his books, although I confess I liked parts of them until I finally got to the end--and then I felt cheated. If I had liked his fiction, I too, would have read it anyway, while holding my nose on his RL opinions. (I feel that way about some actors whose work I admire, but whose opinions make me cringe.)
I've not read any of Orson Scott Card's opinions yet. Since he is an author whose work I *do* enjoy, I will take warning, and try to avoid reading any interviews with him.

[maripo5a.livejournal.com]

Lol, good plan on Card. I read this long interview with him on Salon.com a few yers ago and it put me right off him for a while. But he's such a good stinkin' writer that I just decided the heck with it and went back to rereading him. :-)

[coneygoil.livejournal.com]

I'm not quite sure what archaic language is, but I think I know what your talking about. I've read some Shakespeare and it's tough to follow but once you get the hang of it, it becomes easier to understand.

But all I have to say is that Tolkien is one of the most awesome writers ever and whoever disses him is on the bad list!