In The Courier Mail today, four Australian fantasy writers discuss the His Dark Materials trilogy in a roundtable, going into quite some depth. The authors talk of Pullman's role in the trend in fantasy away from the Tolkein-style Norse and Celtic worlds and into more, “The Romantic Age plus the Industrial Age, a hellish kind of poetry.” They do however agree that they find the latter two novels somewhat inferior to The Golden Compass and disparage Pullman's slide into polemic in The Amber Spyglass. The four raise many interesting points throughout the piece and it's well worth taking the time to read through. Read the article.
Flights of the Fantastic
March 31, 2006
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
Nope, I disagree. TAS was my favorite of the three.
I agree, Natalia. They were too harsh on the second and third books. But they made many good critical points. I agree with them most of all on the point of Asriel. He is a complex monster in the first book, and then it seems like we're supposed to forget about what he did to Roger. I also agree with what they said about Pullman letting his anti-church agenda overwhelm the last book. I wonder if Pullman will read this article?
I don't agree entirely. I do agree that Northern Lights was the most balanced of the three, but TAS, while it had some confusing elements, was still the best of the three for me. But does it really matter? I see it as one book.
I tend to see TGC/TNL as a totally seperate book than TSK and TAS; it's basically completely different. I agree, TGC was the most balanced. Nevertheless, TAS is undoubtedly my favorite. Strange, one of them said that TSK is better than TAS. TSK is and has always been my least favorite of the three…er four.
Finally, I don't think you can compare Tolkien and Pullman, nor can you state that either is bad because it's not the same as the other. They are two different series in two different places written in two completely different forms.
And that's my two cents.
NL was my favourite of the three, but the others weren't too close behind. However, I do kind of agree with the opinions that characterisation and subtlety were lost a bit. I though that sometimes all the different worlds were just a bit… corny? Like the mulefa, I didn't fine them that interesting at all. But these are still some of favourite books ever, and the storyline is amazing.
disagree entirely with most of the negative points they made. If you ask me I detected a creeping note of jealousy. Like any of these fantasy writers could have created anything with the brilliance, scope, originality and passion of HDM.
Eg one said there the humble characters, like roger, get thrown by the wayside and there are no major, normal characters like frodo in the LOTR. What? The WHOLE POINT is that will and lyra are normal, everyday kids who get caught in this fantastic adventure, just like frodo. same thing. Also roger is the catalyst for the freeing of the dead, and so arguably up there with L and W in importance. Actually.
Lord Asriel's character being comprimised- if we take will and lyra as our moral compass in the books they point us the way to go. They reject him, refuse to join with him. and in the end his republic fails, so its not like pp is putting him on a pedestal in any way.
Cont-Also the fall thing – ‘One thing I feel he has completely misunderstood is the story of Adam and Eve and the Fall. Of course it's an orthodox view, the one he seems to be fighting against, but there's another view – which is that the Fall is what made us human’
If Lyra isn’t a humanist then I don’t know who is. In pp’s version of the story Lyra and will’s fall has NOTHING to do with god, who is dead by the time it happens, so how can it be a reflection of or struggle against the ‘orthodox’ fall story? The republic of heaven, which will and lyra make accessible to everyone, seems to me to be the ultimate statement of humanity-which surely is in keeping with this humanist view of the fall.
As for the last two books being unbalanced and stale-! If any of these writers could come up with an idea as original as the mulefa or pull of a concept as ambitious as the death of god then they wouldn’t have to spend their time making snide comments about better authors. I for one found TSK and TAS two of the most engrossing books I have ever read and I am fully prepared to ignore, not trumpet as these people seem obsessed with doing, any minor flaws they might contain whilst I can still view the near perfect bigger picture.
Cont2-Saved the Biggest one till the last- ‘That the climactic moment between Will and Lyra reduced me not to tears but to mocking laughter signalled, to me at least, that Pullman's grand effort had been completely derailed and would be remembered as a failure, magnificent in its conception but nothing more.’ If the final parting of Will and Lyra, my favorite scene in literature, made you laugh then you must be dead inside. ‘Faliure’!!!!! Pullman’s name will be remembered long after yours sonny.
The writers do raise good points in favour of HDM, especially northern lights, but they seem swamped by the negative comments, very very few of which seem justified to me. It feels like some of these writers had to gift Pullman a couple of point ‘oh hes original…’ just so they could seem objective befor digging their nails into the greatest work of fantasy ever written.