Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Golden Compass/Northern Lights Award

Expand Messages
  • David Lenander
    Nobody s really commented on what they think of the selection of _Northern Lights_ as the best of the Carnegie list, and I went to look at the list, once
    Message 1 of 20 , Jun 23, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Nobody's really commented on what they think of the selection of
      _Northern Lights_ as the best of the Carnegie list, and I went to
      look at the list, once again. I could think of a number of titles,
      off-hand, that I'd rank above the Pullman book, but I actually didn't
      remember some of the winners accurately. I'm also embarassed to
      realize just how few among the Carnegie winners I've actually read.
      Not even half of the books. But I'd definitely rank these above
      _The Golden Compass_ (which is the edition I read, there are likely
      small variations between it and the British edition of _Northern
      Lights_):

      2001 Terry Pratchett, The Amazing Maurice and his Educated Rodents,
      Doubleday

      1972 Richard Adams, Watership Down, Rex Collings

      1967 Alan Garner, The Owl Service, Collins
      1962 Pauline Clarke, The Twelve and the Genii, Faber

      1961 Lucy M Boston, A Stranger at Green Knowe, Faber

      1959 Rosemary Sutcliff, The Lantern Bearers, OUP

      1958 Philipa Pearce, Tom's Midnight Garden, OUP

      1956 C S Lewis, The Last Battle, Bodley Head
      1955 Eleanor Farjeon, The Little Bookroom, OUP

      1952 Mary Norton, The Borrowers, Dent

      I'm not sure if I'd rank _Skellig_ above the Pullman book, or
      Margaret Mahy's books, but I'd need to reread to be sure. I think
      that the Mahy books I've liked best weren't her award-winners.
      Likewise Dickinson's _Tulku_, Lively's _Ghost_, Garfield & Blishen's
      _God_, or Goudge's _Little_--I liked all of these books, and
      generally think the writers more important and better than Pullman,
      but perhaps these weren't the authors' best books. Of course, I'm
      not sure that I think _Compass_ Pullman's best, that might be _The
      Ruby in the Smoke_. I do recall feeling rather conflicted about
      _Compass_, I liked a lot of it, but it had huge problems and I mostly
      felt that it ought to have been better than it was, in several
      obvious ways. In contrast, I don't remember having such reservations
      about _Tulku_ or _Little White Horse_, but I read them more
      uncritically, and I know that I didn't like them nearly as well as
      some of the writers' other books. The latter I read so long ago, and
      I was a much younger reader, that I'm not sure how I'd read it
      today. This is more or less true of some of the other books on the
      list, as well.


      1998 David Almond, Skellig, Hodder Children's Books

      1995 Philip Pullman, His Dark Materials: Book 1 Northern Lights,
      Scholastic

      1984 Margaret Mahy, The Changeover, Dent

      1982 Margaret Mahy, The Haunting, Dent

      1979 Peter Dickinson, Tulku, Gollancz

      1973 Penelope Lively, The Ghost of Thomas Kempe, Heinemann

      1970 Leon Garfield & Edward Blishen, The God Beneath the Sea, Longman

      1946 Elizabeth Goudge, The Little White Horse, University of London
      Press



      Then there are books that I cannot remember reading, or am sure that
      I did not read. I thought that I'd read both of Dickinson's Carnegie
      Medal winners, but I thought that the other one was _The Blue Hawk_,
      and apparently I'm going to have to look up _City of Gold_--_Blue
      Hawk_ DID win the Guardian prize, so I must have muddled a report of
      that with the Carnegie in my middle-aged brain. After reading about
      them, I'm sure that I did read _The Machine Gunners_ (a non-fantasy),
      and I think it was pretty good, but it probably belongs in the group
      above, I'd need to reread to tell if I think it better than the
      Pullman. Westall's a fine writer, though, and I think probably better
      overall than Pullman. Somehow, I've missed _The Scarecrows_ up to
      now. I've read lot of Mollie Hunter's books, but I can't remember for
      sure if I read _The Stronghold_, I've been much better about reading
      her excellent fantasies (_The Kelpie's Pearls_ is the best, in my
      recollection, but it didn't win awards). She's an excellent
      historical writer, though, but I suppose if I did read this one, it
      belongs in the "need to reread" group. Reading about _Storm_ I think
      that I may have read it, but my recollections are too dim to be
      sure. His Arthurian trilogy, beginning with _The Seeing Stone_ is
      perhaps less original than "His Dark Materials" but far more
      successful and worthwhile. I think that Rosemary Harris's _Moon in
      the Cloud_ is a historical set in ancient Egypt that I never read--
      but which so many people (iike librarians) talked about so much that
      it sounds familiar enough that maybe I did read it. She was a good
      writer, and I know that I read something she wrote. William Mayne
      wrote so many marvelous books, and I was sure that I'd read _A Grass
      Rope_ but couldn't remember it. I do remember _The Blue Boat_ from
      the same year as a true classic, and _A Swarm In May_, and
      _Earthfasts_ and _A Game of Dark_ and the Hob books, and, and, all of
      them superior to _Northern Lights_, but I guess I have to reread or
      read for the first time, _The Grass Rope_, which doesn't sound in the
      least familiar after finally finding a plot summary. I don't know if
      I read a whole collection of De La Mare stories, but I think he's
      definitely worth rereading, _A Wind on the Moon_ is a book that I've
      read about a number of times, again, I'm not sure that I haven't read
      it, but I think it was always one of those "I must read this one day"
      books.

      1985 Kevin Crossley-Holland, Storm, Heinemann

      1981 Robert Westall, The Scarecrows, Chatto & Windus

      1980 Peter Dickinson, City of Gold, Gollancz

      1975 Robert Westall, The Machine Gunners, Macmillan

      1974 Mollie Hunter, The Stronghold, H Hamilton

      1968 Rosemary Harris, The Moon in the Cloud, Faber

      1957 William Mayne, A Grass Rope, OUP

      1947 Walter De La Mare, Collected Stories for Children

      1944 Eric Linklater, The Wind on the Moon, Macmillan

      I remember considering the Pullman books in the process of the MFA
      committees, and some of the books we read at the same time were far
      superior as well. Our MFA winner the year of _Golden Compass_, which
      was not eligible for the award that year as the committee and
      Administrator judged it incomplete and unable to stand alone apart
      from its context in "His Dark Materials," was Patrice Kindl's _Owl In
      Love_. We made a good choice--that book is more original and almost
      flawless in its execution. For the year that the trilogy became
      eligible, I think 2000, here was our list of finalists:

      (Children's)
      * The Folk Keeper by Franny Billingsley
      Skellig by David Almond
      The Circle of Magic series by Tamora Pierce
      Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban by J.K. Rowling
      Kingdom series by Cynthia Voigt

      If I'm not sure that I'd rank the Almond or the Rowling over _Golden
      Compass_, I AM sure that I'd rank either over the whole train-wreck
      mess of the Pullman trilogy. I'd have no trouble taking the other
      three nominees over the mess, or even over _Compass_, though perhaps
      I wouldn't rank all four individual voumes of the Pierce tetrology
      over it. I'd take even the weakest of the four Voigt books, though.
      I'm not saying that everyone else would necessarily (or even should
      necessarily) share all of my judgments. But if _The Owl Service_ or
      _The Lantern Bearers_ or _Watership Down_ or _Tom's Midnight Garden_
      or even Terry Pratchet's book had been declared the finest in the
      long list it would be less astonishing or a travesty of judgment.

      there are a number of other British writers whose books never
      received Carnegies to be placed in this contest besides Tolkien--one
      who comes to mind is Diana Wynne Jones, who's received our award a
      couple of times, a couple of other recent MFA finalists include
      Jonathan Stroud (who seems to have been completely overlooked by the
      British awards), Eva Ibbotson, and Lynne Reid Banks. I'm sure I could
      think of a dozen more without too much difficulty, from before the
      beginning of the separate Chiildren's MFA.

      David Lenander
      d-lena@...
      2095 Hamline Ave. N.
      Roseville, MN 55113

      651-292-8887
      http://www.umn.edu/~d-lena/RIVENDELL.html
    • Paul Meeter
      Embarrassing to say, I ve read only 2 of all those Carnegie books besides _ Compass_, namely The Last Battle and Watership Down. Surely Watership Down is more
      Message 2 of 20 , Jun 24, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Embarrassing to say, I've read only 2 of all those Carnegie books besides _
        Compass_, namely The Last Battle and Watership Down. Surely Watership Down
        is more meritorious than The Golden Compass in my opinion.

        --
        Paul Meeter


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • John D Rateliff
        ... Hi Paul. Welcome to the list. Like you, I ve only read a few of the award-winning books (six in all), though I ve read other books by several of the
        Message 3 of 20 , Jun 24, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          On Jun 24, 2007, at 5:28 AM, Paul Meeter wrote:
          > Embarrassing to say, I've read only 2 of all those Carnegie books
          > besides _
          > Compass_, namely The Last Battle and Watership Down. Surely
          > Watership Down
          > is more meritorious than The Golden Compass in my opinion.

          Hi Paul. Welcome to the list.
          Like you, I've only read a few of the award-winning books (six in
          all), though I've read other books by several of the authors. Of them
          all, there's only one I think's a better book than GOLDEN COMPASS,
          and that's WATERSHIP DOWN, which isn't a children's book at all--in
          fact, I rank Adams' book the best fantasy of the 1970s, just as I
          rank Pullman's the best of the 1980s. So given the works they had to
          choose from, I think they made the right choice. If it had a wide-
          open field of all the children's books published in England in that
          period, I'd personally have opted for THE HOBBIT (no surprise there).
          Here's hoping the Newbery folks don't decide to walk down the
          same path.


          On Jun 22, 2007, at 8:33 PM, Merlin DeTardo wrote:
          > So who here has read the 1937 winner, _The Family from One End Street_
          > by Eve Garnett? How does it compare to _The Hobbit_?
          >
          > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Family_from_One_End_Street

          Christina Scull has: I remember that she discusses the book in a
          presentation I attended years ago, but I can't tell you where or if
          her piece was published. From what I've read about it I gather that
          THE FAMILY FROM ONE END STREET was groundbreaking in its day for its
          attempt to present the lives of ordinary people in neither muckraking
          nor sentimental fashion, but I also gather it has not aged well.


          On Jun 23, 2007, at 9:03 AM, David Lenander wrote:
          > Nobody's really commented on what they think of the selection of
          > _Northern Lights_ as the best of the Carnegie list, and I went to
          > look at the list, once again. I could think of a number of titles,
          > off-hand, that I'd rank above the Pullman book

          See above; from the limited number of books I've read that were
          eligible (my reading was much more from the Newbery winners), GOLDEN
          COMPASS has only one peer: WATERSHIP DOWN. That Pullman utterly
          failed to deliver on the promise of this first book doesn't, to my
          mind, detract from his achievement, anymore than THE TOMBS OF ATUAN
          diminishes A WIZARD OF EARTHSEA, or Book V of THE FAERIE QUEENE
          diminishes Books III & IV.

          --JDR
          current reading: THE ENTS AND THE ENT-WIVES by Lee Whitehead [2005]
        • John D Rateliff
          ... Sorry: obviously, that should have read best of the 1990s . --JDR
          Message 4 of 20 , Jun 24, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            > just as I rank Pullman's the best of the 1980s.

            Sorry: obviously, that should have read "best of the 1990s".
            --JDR
          • Cathy Akers-Jordan
            Same here, Paul, but I see lots of books I want to add to Mount-To-Be-Read. Cathy ... besides _ ... Watership Down
            Message 5 of 20 , Jun 25, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              Same here, Paul, but I see lots of books I want to add to
              Mount-To-Be-Read.

              Cathy

              --- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Meeter" <pdmeeter@...> wrote:
              >
              > Embarrassing to say, I've read only 2 of all those Carnegie books
              besides _
              > Compass_, namely The Last Battle and Watership Down. Surely
              Watership Down
              > is more meritorious than The Golden Compass in my opinion.
              >
              > --
              > Paul Meeter
              >
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
            • William Cloud Hicklin
              I can t help but suspect that Pullman s open contempt for Tolkien and Lewis, as well as his militant atheism, garnered him quite a few votes from the Literati.
              Message 6 of 20 , Jun 25, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                I can't help but suspect that Pullman's open
                contempt for Tolkien and Lewis, as well as his
                militant atheism, garnered him quite a few votes
                from the Literati.
              • William Cloud Hicklin
                ... doesn t, to my ... THE TOMBS OF ATUAN ... FAERIE QUEENE ... I can t concur. GC isn t a book in its own right, like Wizard of Earthsea, but merely Volume
                Message 7 of 20 , Jun 25, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, John D Rateliff
                  <sacnoth@...> wrote:

                  >That Pullman utterly
                  > failed to deliver on the promise of this first book
                  doesn't, to my
                  > mind, detract from his achievement, anymore than
                  THE TOMBS OF ATUAN
                  > diminishes A WIZARD OF EARTHSEA, or Book V of THE
                  FAERIE QUEENE
                  > diminishes Books III & IV.


                  I can't concur. GC isn't a book in its own right,
                  like Wizard of Earthsea, but merely Volume 1, like
                  Fellowship. It can't to my mind be judged
                  independent of the other volumes, and like David, I
                  find the third in particular to be a trainwreck: Act
                  III of Faust as imagined by William Burroughs.
                • Mike Foster
                  During my term teaching in Canterbury at Canterbury Christ Church University College in spring 2004, NORTHERN LIGHTS was one of the three assigned novels on
                  Message 8 of 20 , Jun 25, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    During my term teaching in Canterbury at Canterbury Christ Church
                    University College in spring 2004, NORTHERN LIGHTS was one of the three
                    assigned novels on the syllabus in the Fiction & Drama course for
                    underclass English majors. While it certainly started out very well, it
                    was, as noted below, incomplete and thus unfulfilling. A few of the
                    students had read the others and their verdict was similar to WCH's.

                    THE BORROWERS, which I first read as a child, would have earned my
                    sentimental vote; all of the series' volumes were well-wrought. I
                    re-read as an adult years ago and they held up quite well.

                    Far Westfarthing smial here in west-central Illinois has discussed
                    adding GC/NL to our agenda for reading before the film appears.

                    Cheers,
                    Mike

                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com [mailto:mythsoc@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
                    Of William Cloud Hicklin
                    Sent: Monday, June 25, 2007 10:17 AM
                    To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: [mythsoc] Re:Golden Compass/Northern Lights Award

                    --- In mythsoc@yahoogroups <mailto:mythsoc%40yahoogroups.com> .com, John
                    D Rateliff
                    <sacnoth@...> wrote:

                    >That Pullman utterly
                    > failed to deliver on the promise of this first book
                    doesn't, to my
                    > mind, detract from his achievement, anymore than
                    THE TOMBS OF ATUAN
                    > diminishes A WIZARD OF EARTHSEA, or Book V of THE
                    FAERIE QUEENE
                    > diminishes Books III & IV.

                    I can't concur. GC isn't a book in its own right,
                    like Wizard of Earthsea, but merely Volume 1, like
                    Fellowship. It can't to my mind be judged
                    independent of the other volumes, and like David, I
                    find the third in particular to be a trainwreck: Act
                    III of Faust as imagined by William Burroughs.



                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Walkermonk@aol.com
                    I missed this, since I tend to skip Mr. Rateliff s posts. Just want to state for the record that The Tombs of Atuan is a fantastic book, absolutely worthy of
                    Message 9 of 20 , Jun 25, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      I missed this, since I tend to skip Mr. Rateliff's posts. Just want to state
                      for the record that "The Tombs of Atuan" is a fantastic book, absolutely
                      worthy of following "A Wizard of Earthsea" and an excellent compliment to it. Far
                      from diminishing from Wizard, it adds immeasurably to the development of Ged
                      and shows more of the Earthsea world and its inhabitants.

                      Just had to show Atuan some love -- now back to the debate about Pullman,
                      whom I care nothing for and think very little of his writing, and certainly not
                      enough to argue about him when others are doing such heavy lifting for me, so
                      to speak.

                      Grace Walker Monk


                      In a message dated 6/25/2007 10:18:53 AM Central Daylight Time,
                      solicitr@... writes:

                      --- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, John D Rateliff
                      <sacnoth@...> wrote:

                      >That Pullman utterly
                      > failed to deliver on the promise of this first book
                      doesn't, to my
                      > mind, detract from his achievement, anymore than
                      THE TOMBS OF ATUAN
                      > diminishes A WIZARD OF EARTHSEA, or Book V of THE
                      FAERIE QUEENE
                      > diminishes Books III & IV.





                      ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com


                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • David Bratman
                      I read about the first half of the first Pullman volume, and found it an extremely poor book for several reasons - the polemics were so heavy-handed that they
                      Message 10 of 20 , Jun 25, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        I read about the first half of the first Pullman volume, and found it an
                        extremely poor book for several reasons - the polemics were so heavy-handed
                        that they irritated me even where I agreed with Pullman's philosophy, and
                        the book isn't written in the "fairy tale" style (as Narnia is, for
                        instance) that can excuse dogmatics; the structure and politics of the
                        secondary world were grossly oversimple, a fatal objection when it's
                        supposed to be the high politics of an alternate reality of our modern
                        world; and the daemons were as irritating as the Ewoks and E.T., and that's
                        about as irritating as is possible short of Jar Jar Binks. On top of which
                        the plot wasn't very interesting or engrossing.

                        And that, I was assured, is the good part!

                        If that's the great fantasy of the 90s, then the field truly has become a
                        scorched desert.

                        Comparing it to the magnificent and profound _Watership Down_ reminds me of
                        the Monty Python sketch about how 9 out of 10 British women can't tell the
                        difference between Whizzo butter and a dead crab.

                        About the subsequent volumes I can't speak, except to note that by all
                        accounts they are one story and so complaints I've read about the rampant
                        illogic of volume three do reflect back on volume one, the same way that if
                        Frodo had just dropped the Ring in the volcano and gone home, no harm no
                        hurt no foul, it would have been a blemish on the whole LOTR and not merely
                        volume three.

                        Contrary, as Grace Monk says, to Earthsea. I'll leave volumes 4+ out of
                        this, but the original trilogy is a true trilogy, three separate stories,
                        and if _Farthest Shore_ is a little damp at times it's still a magnificent
                        adventure, and _The Tombs of Atuan_ is every bit as good as _Wizard_, maybe
                        better as it has a more unified plot: it's only flawed if you expect it to
                        be told from Ged's viewpoint; whereas I found identifying him to be a major
                        joy of a first spoiler-free reading.

                        However, I doubt that Pullman's award went to a lousy book because the
                        judges were atheists who wanted to give one in the eye to Tolkien and
                        Lewis. That kind of tendentious misreading of people's motives is the kind
                        of thing I'd expect to find in a Pullman novel. It makes much more sense
                        to assume that, like John Rateliff - no Tolkien-hater he - they actually
                        thought it was a good book.
                      • John D Rateliff
                        ... Yes, it s a sentimental favorite of mine as well; read and re-read them over and over in days gone by (except for POOR STAINLESS, which I could have done
                        Message 11 of 20 , Jun 25, 2007
                        • 0 Attachment
                          On Jun 25, 2007, at 8:28 AM, Mike Foster wrote:
                          > THE BORROWERS, which I first read as a child, would have earned my
                          > sentimental vote; all of the series' volumes were well-wrought. I
                          > re-read as an adult years ago and they held up quite well.

                          Yes, it's a sentimental favorite of mine as well; read and re-read
                          them over and over in days gone by (except for POOR STAINLESS, which
                          I could have done without). Though I think ARE ALL THE GIANTS DEAD?
                          is actually a better book than any of them, excepting possibly the
                          original THE BORROWERS, I didn't discover that until years later.


                          On Jun 25, 2007, at 9:43 AM, David Bratman wrote:
                          > _The Tombs of Atuan_ is every bit as good as _Wizard_, maybe
                          > better as it has a more unified plot: it's only flawed if you
                          > expect it to
                          > be told from Ged's viewpoint; whereas I found identifying him to be
                          > a major
                          > joy of a first spoiler-free reading.

                          Afraid that can't explain my reaction, since I read TOMBS first, with
                          no preconceptions whatsoever about who should be in it. It was the
                          first fantasy I read after discovering Tolkien, handed to me by
                          someone who said "If you liked Tolkien, you'll like this". I hated it
                          so much I didn't read any more LeGuin again for five years, when I
                          discovered THE LEFT HAND OF DARKNESS, discovered just how good a
                          writer she was, and went back to give Earthsea another try. The first
                          book is magnificent; the second does not improve for me on a second,
                          third, or even fourth reading (love the setting, hate the story,
                          uninterested in the characters); the third is, as LeGuin says, an
                          ambitious failure but the good parts are very good, so I'm fine with
                          that. I'm glad the middle book has its admirers, though, and that
                          they get something out of it that I can't. My favorite Earthsea is
                          actually "The Rule of Names", not just for obvious reasons but
                          because it didn't feature any of the main characters: I wish she'd
                          changed her cast entirely with each new book rather than revisiting
                          the same characters time and time again.

                          On Jun 24, 2007, at 4:31 PM, John D Rateliff wrote:
                          >> just as I rank Pullman's the best of the 1980s.
                          > Sorry: obviously, that should have read "best of the 1990s".

                          --for the 1980s I would pick THE BRIDGE OF BIRDS for that honor.

                          --JDR
                        • David Bratman
                          ... Oh dear. That kind of salesmanship was the bane of my existence throughout my teens, so I sympathize. The problem is that other books may be good, but
                          Message 12 of 20 , Jun 25, 2007
                          • 0 Attachment
                            At 11:07 AM 6/25/2007 -0700, John D Rateliff wrote:

                            >Afraid that can't explain my reaction, since I read TOMBS first, with
                            >no preconceptions whatsoever about who should be in it. It was the
                            >first fantasy I read after discovering Tolkien, handed to me by
                            >someone who said "If you liked Tolkien, you'll like this".

                            Oh dear. That kind of salesmanship was the bane of my existence throughout
                            my teens, so I sympathize. The problem is that other books may be good,
                            but while you're anxiously waiting for _The Silmarillion_ to be published,
                            nothing by anybody else will scratch that Tolkien itch.

                            A few books I read in those days were good enough on their own terms, and
                            sufficiently individual and distinctive as LOTR was, to overcome this
                            burden: the Earthsea books and _Watership Down_ among them. Others, like
                            the Conan stories, had nothing in common with Tolkien except for having
                            heroism in a vaguely barbaric setting, and I couldn't figure out why people
                            were recommending them to me at all.


                            >--for the 1980s I would pick THE BRIDGE OF BIRDS for that honor.

                            A delightful, colorful book. But not what I would call a great fantasy by
                            any standard. The book from that decade, indeed even the very same year,
                            that I keep returning to is _Fire and Hemlock_, which I still consider
                            Diana Wynne Jones's best.
                          • Cathy Akers-Jordan
                            ... I had the same problem as a teen/college student, John. After reading LotR at 15, I quickly learned to avoid any books that friends or cover blurbs
                            Message 13 of 20 , Jun 26, 2007
                            • 0 Attachment
                              > It was the first fantasy I read after discovering Tolkien, handed to
                              > me by someone who said "If you liked Tolkien, you'll like this".

                              I had the same problem as a teen/college student, John. After reading
                              LotR at 15, I quickly learned to avoid any books that friends or cover
                              blurbs compared to Tolkien because 1. *nothing* could compare, 2. it
                              was usually nothing like LotR, and 3. I usually hated it (like
                              Sharnara and Thomas Covenant, which I've mentioned before).

                              For years I didn't read sword-and-sorcery fantasy because nothing
                              could compare to an epic like LotR and I hated the books my friends
                              thought were wonderful. I liked Piers Anothy in high school but
                              outgrew him long before my friends did. I read things like Watership
                              Down, Ray Bradbury, and lots mysteries (still love those!) -- until I
                              discovered Harry Potter. :)

                              Now I see I have lots of catching up to do!

                              So many books, so little time,

                              Cathy
                            • alexeik@aol.com
                              ... From: John D Rateliff To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 2:07 pm Subject: Re: [mythsoc] Re:Golden Compass/Northern
                              Message 14 of 20 , Jun 26, 2007
                              • 0 Attachment
                                -----Original Message-----
                                From: John D Rateliff <sacnoth@...>
                                To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
                                Sent: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 2:07 pm
                                Subject: Re: [mythsoc] Re:Golden Compass/Northern Lights Award






                                On Jun 24, 2007, at 4:31 PM, John D Rateliff wrote:
                                >> just as I rank Pullman's the best of the 1980s.
                                > Sorry: obviously, that should have read "best of the 1990s".

                                --for the 1980s I would pick THE BRIDGE OF BIRDS for that honor.

                                --JDR
                                <<

                                I might have said _Little, Big_.
                                Alexei





                                ________________________________________________________________________
                                AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.


                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • lynnmaudlin
                                So why did The Golden Compass/Northern Lights win, instead of the whole His Dark Materials book? *confused* Reading the variety of responses and reactions
                                Message 15 of 20 , Jun 26, 2007
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  So why did "The Golden Compass/Northern Lights" win, instead of the
                                  whole "His Dark Materials" book? *confused*

                                  Reading the variety of responses and reactions to this and LeGuin and
                                  others, I can only think "Your Mileage May Vary--" we are individuals
                                  and respond as such. This is a good thing, imho.

                                  -- Lynn --

                                  --- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, "William Cloud Hicklin" <solicitr@...>
                                  wrote:
                                  >
                                  > I can't concur. GC isn't a book in its own right,
                                  > like Wizard of Earthsea, but merely Volume 1, like
                                  > Fellowship. It can't to my mind be judged
                                  > independent of the other volumes, and like David, I
                                  > find the third in particular to be a trainwreck: Act
                                  > III of Faust as imagined by William Burroughs.
                                  >
                                • WendellWag@aol.com
                                  In a message dated 6/26/2007 10:32:42 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, lynnmaudlin@yahoo.com writes: So why did The Golden Compass/Northern Lights win, instead
                                  Message 16 of 20 , Jun 26, 2007
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    In a message dated 6/26/2007 10:32:42 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
                                    lynnmaudlin@... writes:

                                    So why did "The Golden Compass/Northern Lights" win, instead of the
                                    whole "His Dark Materials" book? *confused*



                                    Because, as I said in my post last night, the whole nomination procedure was
                                    very arcane. They started with all the winners of the Carnegie Medal. _His
                                    Dark Materials_ was never voted on as a single book for the Carnegie. Only
                                    the part published as _The Golden Compass_ won a Carnegie. Then some
                                    committee decided that the following ten books were the finalists and they were the
                                    only books that the online voters could choose from:

                                    David Almond _David Al
                                    Melvin Burgess _Junk_
                                    <WBR><WBR>Kevin Crossley-Holland
                                    Jennifer Donnelly _A Jennifer Donnelly
                                    Alan Garner _The Owl Service_
                                    Eve Garnett Eve Garnett <WBR><WBR>_The Family
                                    <WBR><WBR><WBR><WBR><WBR><WB
                                    Philippa Pearce Philippa Pearce <WBR><WBR
                                    Philip Pullman Philip Pullman <WBR><W
                                    Robert WestallRobert Westall<WBR><W

                                    The online voters chose _The Golden Compass_, possibly because it was the
                                    only one that they had read (or even heard of).

                                    Wendell Wagner




                                    ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com


                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  • WendellWag@aol.com
                                    The book titles and authors got screwed up somehow, and I don t have time to figure out why. Look at the Wikipedia entry for the Carnegie Medal. There s a
                                    Message 17 of 20 , Jun 26, 2007
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      The book titles and authors got screwed up somehow, and I don't have time to
                                      figure out why. Look at the Wikipedia entry for the Carnegie Medal.
                                      There's a list of the ten finalists there.

                                      Wendell Wagner



                                      ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com


                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    • Diane Joy Baker
                                      Oh, of course it did. If first volume is part of a series I can t separate what happens in the first book from what happens later in subsequent books, and
                                      Message 18 of 20 , Jun 27, 2007
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Oh, of course it did. If first volume is part of a series I can't separate what happens in the first book from what happens later in subsequent books, and since he's so millitant, it shows in the later work. So although I enjoyed some aspects of *Golden Compass* I would not be able to give it my vote.

                                        More things to add to my To Read pile, continually getting larger.

                                        ----- Original Message -----
                                        From: William Cloud Hicklin
                                        To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
                                        Sent: Monday, June 25, 2007 10:58 AM
                                        Subject: [mythsoc] Re: Golden Compass/Northern Lights Award


                                        I can't help but suspect that Pullman's open
                                        contempt for Tolkien and Lewis, as well as his
                                        militant atheism, garnered him quite a few votes
                                        from the Literati.





                                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      • Diane Joy Baker
                                        I certainly enjoyed Atuan; still hold some images in my mind from that book after years of not reading it. That s a compliment. ... From: Walkermonk@aol.com
                                        Message 19 of 20 , Jun 27, 2007
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          I certainly enjoyed Atuan; still hold some images in my mind from that book after years of not reading it. That's a compliment.

                                          ----- Original Message -----
                                          From: Walkermonk@...
                                          To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
                                          Sent: Monday, June 25, 2007 11:43 AM
                                          Subject: Re: [mythsoc] Re:Golden Compass/Northern Lights Award



                                          I missed this, since I tend to skip Mr. Rateliff's posts. Just want to state
                                          for the record that "The Tombs of Atuan" is a fantastic book, absolutely
                                          worthy of following "A Wizard of Earthsea" and an excellent compliment to it. Far
                                          from diminishing from Wizard, it adds immeasurably to the development of Ged
                                          and shows more of the Earthsea world and its inhabitants.

                                          Just had to show Atuan some love -- now back to the debate about Pullman,
                                          whom I care nothing for and think very little of his writing, and certainly not
                                          enough to argue about him when others are doing such heavy lifting for me, so
                                          to speak.

                                          Grace Walker Monk


                                          In a message dated 6/25/2007 10:18:53 AM Central Daylight Time,
                                          solicitr@... writes:

                                          --- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, John D Rateliff
                                          <sacnoth@...> wrote:

                                          >That Pullman utterly
                                          > failed to deliver on the promise of this first book
                                          doesn't, to my
                                          > mind, detract from his achievement, anymore than
                                          THE TOMBS OF ATUAN
                                          > diminishes A WIZARD OF EARTHSEA, or Book V of THE
                                          FAERIE QUEENE
                                          > diminishes Books III & IV.

                                          ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com

                                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





                                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        • John D Rateliff
                                          Just a quick note to ask if anybody who d found errata in THE HISTORY OF THE HOBBIT could drop me a line off-list (sacnoth@earthlink.net) to let me know about
                                          Message 20 of 20 , Dec 2, 2007
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Just a quick note to ask if anybody who'd found errata in THE HISTORY
                                            OF THE HOBBIT could drop me a line off-list (sacnoth@...)
                                            to let me know about them, so I can fix them for the trade paperback.
                                            Think I've found most of them by now, but you never know; better
                                            hearing again about one I've caught than missing one I didn't spot.
                                            TIme is a factor, though, so if you know of any please let me know
                                            right away.
                                            Thanks all.
                                            --John R.
                                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.