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

Re: [mythsoc] Pullman about Lewis

Expand Messages
  • Ted Sherman
    Mary, He s got an axe to grind. Read the interviews. And read those that were published in Lion and the Unicorn last year and in Horn Book. Ted ... -- Dr.
    Message 1 of 9 , Oct 30, 2000
      Mary,

      He's got an axe to grind. Read the interviews. And read those that were published
      in Lion and the Unicorn last year and in Horn Book.

      Ted

      Stolzi@... wrote:

      > In a message dated 10/30/00 2:41:50 PM Central Standard Time,
      > tedsherman@... writes:
      >
      > > Oops--forgot to put the URLs in. Here they are:
      >
      > If ever I saw a list of URLs I didn't want to pursue...
      >
      > But it brings up this thought: Why does Pullman talk about Lewis so much?
      > I mean, are the interviewers persistent on this, is he just responding to
      > them - or =is= he wrestling with some kind of grudge/complex/whatever that he
      > can't seem to give up?
      >
      > Mary S
      >
      >
      > The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org

      --
      Dr. Theodore James Sherman, Editor
      Mythlore: A Journal of J. R. R. Tolkien, C. S. Lewis, Charles Williams and
      Mythopoeic Literature
      Box X041, Department of English
      Middle Tennessee State University
      Murfreesboro, TN 37132
      615 898-5836; FAX 615 898-5098
      tsherman@...
      tedsherman@...
    • Stolzi@aol.com
      Well, I visited two or three of the URLs Ted gave. Came away fiercely irritated, I fear. What =is= this cr*p about the Christian Heaven being a sell, because
      Message 2 of 9 , Oct 31, 2000
        Well, I visited two or three of the URLs Ted gave. Came away fiercely
        irritated, I fear. What =is= this cr*p about the Christian Heaven being a
        sell, because "here and now is all there is, and it's all beautiful and
        wonderful and ecstatic" (approx quote)

        The man should be sentenced to nurse a terminal cancer patient, or live in a
        third-world slum for years, to cure him of producing that sort of nonsense.

        I am trying to re-read vols 1 and 2 and have a reserve at the library on vol
        3, since this trilogy is our BUTTERBUR'S WOODSHED topic for January. But it
        is going to be tough sledding. In fact I just got through the part of vol 1
        in which Mrs Coulter's kidnapping of little children is described - it's
        horrifying - this is not a book to put in any =child's= hands in any event.
        Not that most young children's reading skills are up to it.

        Mary S
      • Christine Howlett
        I agree with you that the Pullman trilogy is definitely NOT written for children. Yes, I found myself re-reading sections that seemed complex, and there is
        Message 3 of 9 , Oct 31, 2000
          I agree with you that the Pullman trilogy is definitely NOT written for
          children. Yes, I found myself re-reading sections that seemed complex, and
          there is quite a bit of horrifying action for a child who is even a little
          imaginative. I was quite amazed that they are being marketed and sold as
          kids' books - but the children's section sure is where you find them.
          Fantasy/sci-fi would be MUCH more appropriate!

          I did find the first book quite interesting, the second book left rather a
          bitter taste. It was not altogether suprising that he is anti-religious
          (rather than un-religious, if you will). I really doubt that I will pick up
          the third volume.
          Christine


          -----Original Message-----
          From: Stolzi@... <Stolzi@...>
          To: mythsoc@egroups.com <mythsoc@egroups.com>
          Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2000 11:23 AM
          Subject: Re: [mythsoc] Pullman about Lewis


          >Well, I visited two or three of the URLs Ted gave. Came away fiercely
          >irritated, I fear. What =is= this cr*p about the Christian Heaven being a
          >sell, because "here and now is all there is, and it's all beautiful and
          >wonderful and ecstatic" (approx quote)
          >
          >The man should be sentenced to nurse a terminal cancer patient, or live in
          a
          >third-world slum for years, to cure him of producing that sort of nonsense.
          >
          >I am trying to re-read vols 1 and 2 and have a reserve at the library on
          vol
          >3, since this trilogy is our BUTTERBUR'S WOODSHED topic for January. But
          it
          >is going to be tough sledding. In fact I just got through the part of vol
          1
          >in which Mrs Coulter's kidnapping of little children is described - it's
          >horrifying - this is not a book to put in any =child's= hands in any event.
          >Not that most young children's reading skills are up to it.
          >
          >Mary S
          >
          >
          >The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
          >
          >
        • alexeik@aol.com
          In a message dated 10/31/0 9:25:34 PM, Christine wrote:
          Message 4 of 9 , Oct 31, 2000
            In a message dated 10/31/0 9:25:34 PM, Christine wrote:

            <<I did find the first book quite interesting, the second book left rather a
            bitter taste. It was not altogether suprising that he is anti-religious
            (rather than un-religious, if you will).>>

            I don't think he's anti-religious (at least, I don't think he'd describe
            himself that way) so much as anti-Christian or anti-theist. What bothered me
            most about it is that his views don't seem to be thought through very well;
            they're full of inconsistencies that become more and more jarring as the book
            progresses. Ursula Le Guin's world-view is probably non-Christian to the same
            degree (and essentially non-theistic), yet it's never bothered me because
            it's both consistent and very rich, and it has a balance to it that sees no
            need to attack what it's not. Pullman annoys me in the same way that preachy
            fundamentalist-Christian fantasies a la Frank Peretti irritate me, except
            that luckily he writes a thousand times better, and *does* have much more
            depth.

            << I really doubt that I will pick up
            the third volume.>>

            You should: it has some really wonderful things in it, although, as I said, I
            found the conclusion disappointing.
            Alexei
          • Sophie Masson
            I know that Philip thought quite a lot of Peter Goldthwaite s book, The Natural History of Make-Believe, which is actually written by a man with a Christian
            Message 5 of 9 , Nov 1, 2000
              I know that Philip thought quite a lot of Peter Goldthwaite's book, The
              Natural History of Make-Believe, which is actually written by a man with a
              Christian point of view, but which is rather scathing about both Tolkien and
              Lewis(but complimentary say about Greene or Collodi). I've bought the book
              and read it; it's interesting and wellwritten though I'm not convinced by
              Goldthwaite's arguments. Basically he doesn't like the idea of sub-creation,
              as Tolkien put it.
              Sophie
              Author site:
              http://www.northnet.com.au/~smasson

              ----- Original Message -----
              From: <alexeik@...>
              To: <mythsoc@egroups.com>
              Sent: Wednesday, 1 November 2000 10:47
              Subject: Re: Re: [mythsoc] Pullman about Lewis


              >
              > In a message dated 10/31/0 9:25:34 PM, Christine wrote:
              >
              > <<I did find the first book quite interesting, the second book left rather
              a
              > bitter taste. It was not altogether suprising that he is anti-religious
              > (rather than un-religious, if you will).>>
              >
              > I don't think he's anti-religious (at least, I don't think he'd describe
              > himself that way) so much as anti-Christian or anti-theist. What bothered
              me
              > most about it is that his views don't seem to be thought through very
              well;
              > they're full of inconsistencies that become more and more jarring as the
              book
              > progresses. Ursula Le Guin's world-view is probably non-Christian to the
              same
              > degree (and essentially non-theistic), yet it's never bothered me because
              > it's both consistent and very rich, and it has a balance to it that sees
              no
              > need to attack what it's not. Pullman annoys me in the same way that
              preachy
              > fundamentalist-Christian fantasies a la Frank Peretti irritate me, except
              > that luckily he writes a thousand times better, and *does* have much more
              > depth.
              >
              > << I really doubt that I will pick up
              > the third volume.>>
              >
              > You should: it has some really wonderful things in it, although, as I
              said, I
              > found the conclusion disappointing.
              > Alexei
              >
              >
              > The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
              >
            • David S. Bratman
              ... John Goldthwaite. It s a stunning book - stunningly bad, in my opinion. His denunciation of Narnia outdoes anything I ve seen elsewhere from even the most
              Message 6 of 9 , Nov 1, 2000
                On Wed, 1 Nov 2000, Sophie Masson wrote:

                > I know that Philip thought quite a lot of Peter Goldthwaite's book, The
                > Natural History of Make-Believe, which is actually written by a man with a
                > Christian point of view, but which is rather scathing about both Tolkien and
                > Lewis(but complimentary say about Greene or Collodi). I've bought the book
                > and read it; it's interesting and wellwritten though I'm not convinced by
                > Goldthwaite's arguments. Basically he doesn't like the idea of sub-creation,
                > as Tolkien put it.

                John Goldthwaite. It's a stunning book - stunningly bad, in my opinion.
                His denunciation of Narnia outdoes anything I've seen elsewhere from even
                the most fanatical anti-Narnian, including Pullman. His argument against
                Tolkien's theory of sub-creation is to charge that Tolkien was a bad
                Christian by advancing it, since to subcreate is (Goldthwaite says) to
                imply that there is something insufficient about God's primary creation,
                and thereby to insult God and accuse Him of imperfection.

                Goldthwaite also spends pages upon pages on a bizarre theory of Lewis
                Carroll's writerly motivations that I can't even try to summarize.

                David Bratman
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.