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

Re: [mythsoc] Pullman and the Anxiety of Influence, etc.

Expand Messages
  • ERATRIANO@aol.com
    In a message dated 10/31/2000 10:51:26 PM Eastern Standard Time, smasson@northnet.com.au writes:
    Message 1 of 11 , Nov 1, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 10/31/2000 10:51:26 PM Eastern Standard Time,
      smasson@... writes:

      << I disliked The Last Battle thoroughly--I
      couldn't have told you why as a child but now I think it was because it
      reminded me of hellfire preachers I had known. It seems to me the least
      childlike and mythical of the series, and I think Philip particularly hates
      that one too. >>

      It's been too long since I last reread the series, but I liked TLB. I took
      comfort from Aslan's claiming of one of the, what were they? the
      pseudo-Saracens... Not just the act itself, but its implications as well.

      Sounds like I should avoid Goldthwaite, and the jury is still out on Pullman.
      On the other hand, there are constantly more and more Redwall books, and I
      can't help but wonder if they are enjoyable.

      I am ploughing through Moon's Deed of Paksennarion (sp) and while it took
      some getting used to, and I personally miss a romantic element, it is
      definitely worth reading, at least so far. There is a wealth more of certain
      details than I can take in, but it still doesn't make it a bad book. Many
      supposedly mythic books leave a gooey taste in the mind, and Paks, while not
      as poetic as I might like, is leaving a clean taste... lol

      Lizzie
    • alexeik@aol.com
      In a message dated 11/1/0 5:23:38 PM, David Bratman wrote:
      Message 2 of 11 , Nov 1, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        In a message dated 11/1/0 5:23:38 PM, David Bratman wrote:

        << However,
        the proof of that pudding has to be in the eating. If Pullman's books
        are successful as literature, it doesn't matter why he wrote them.>>

        I agree, and my objection to the trilogy is not a partisan ideological one,
        but is based on my dissatisfaction with its conclusion, which gave evidence
        of sloppy thinking and evasion of crucial implications of the plot. In an
        interview he gave to Amazon.com, he said that his world-view was basically a
        moral one, that kindness and self-sacrifice were good and cruelty and
        selfishness were evil, regardless of where they were manifested -- that if a
        self-proclaimed religious person is selfish and cruel, their religious
        allegiance doesn't excuse them. This is very easy to accept, and could be the
        basis of a successful fantasy plot (although having *everybody* in the Church
        be evil is stretching credibility a bit -- but that's another story), but
        Pullman then muddies his moral vision. At the beginning, Iorek Byrnison is a
        really powerful image of goodness, and Mrs.Coulter is as ghastly a figure of
        self-centered evil as one might wish for. The problem comes with Lord
        Asriel,whose own cruelty is amply demonstrated at the end of _The Golden
        Compass_, and whose revolt is motivated primarily by his unwillingness to
        recognise an authority higher than his own. However, all those who have had
        reason to resent the Authority flock to his banner and treat him as a heroic
        liberator, even though there is nothing of the "kindness" and altruism in him
        that would make him a "good" character according to Pullman's own terms. His
        "heroism" in his suicidal destruction of the Authority is motivated entirely
        by hate. The plot was leading me to expect Lyra (who has first-hand knowledge
        of his cruelty) to expose her father's true motivations and to establish
        "goodness" on a firmer foundation. But in the end she never even learns of
        her parents' fate (and her father's indifference to her even gets whitewashed
        by a pious lie). Mrs. Coulter is so manipulative in her selfishness that I
        found it impossible to believe in any of her turnarounds, including her
        crucial last one (and I have no idea whether Pullman expected us to). This in
        particular robbed the book of its full final impact.
        Alexei
      • Mary Kay Kare
        ... I have to say I thouroughly enjoyed the first half of DoP. But when things started getting religious and mystical it became less enjoyable for me. I
        Message 3 of 11 , Nov 2, 2000
        • 0 Attachment
          ERATRIANO@... wrote:
          >
          >
          > I am ploughing through Moon's Deed of Paksennarion (sp) and while it took
          > some getting used to, and I personally miss a romantic element, it is
          > definitely worth reading, at least so far. There is a wealth more of certain
          > details than I can take in, but it still doesn't make it a bad book. Many
          > supposedly mythic books leave a gooey taste in the mind, and Paks, while not
          > as poetic as I might like, is leaving a clean taste... lol
          >
          I have to say I thouroughly enjoyed the first half of DoP. But when
          things started getting religious and mystical it became less enjoyable
          for me. I think, however, this is my peculiarity rather than a flaw
          in the writing.

          MKK
        • ERATRIANO@aol.com
          Message 4 of 11 , Nov 6, 2000
          • 0 Attachment
            << Somewhere Gene Wolfe was quoted as saying that Tolkien is such a giant for
            subsequent fantasyists that they must either write in his shadow or in
            reaction to Tolkien. I'd really love to find the original Gene Wolfe
            quotation. It seems overstatement from a writer who is probably most
            influenced by another giant, J.L. Borges, and certainly shows more influence
            from Dickens and Kipling than Tolkien. So I'd like to see exactly what he
            said. (Or to know that he was misquoted). >>

            It's an understandable generalization. One can either write in the
            orcs-and-elves sort of tradition, or consciously choose not to use any of it.
            But I'm not sure how things like poetric prophecy, magic swords, and other
            things that existed before Tolkien, would be classified. Did the quote ever
            turn up.

            << By the way, I read Caroline Stevermer's new book, _When the King Comes
            Home_ and greatly enjoyed it. >>

            I've not heard of her. What does she write?

            Lizzie
          • Paul F. Labaki
            ... David Eddings is responsible for the above. It was during an interview that was contained in a Waldenbooks publication that was given to members of some
            Message 5 of 11 , Nov 7, 2000
            • 0 Attachment
              David Lenander <d-lena@...> wrote:
              >
              > Somewhere Gene Wolfe was quoted as saying that Tolkien
              > is such a giant for subsequent fantasyists that they must either write in his
              > shadow or in reaction to Tolkien. I'd really love to find the original Gene
              > Wolfe quotation.

              David Eddings is responsible for the above. It was during an interview that
              was contained in a Waldenbooks publication that was given to members of some
              sort of sf readers club, if memory serves.

              Peace,
              Paul
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.