'Spun Candy' anyone?

[Mister Underhill]

Hey, lady! Fancy meeting you here! I almost couldn't believe my eyes.

"How much better I could have framed my points" is always a recurring thought every time I read through some of these old threads -- that or a cringe at the point I was attempting to make in the first place.

We watched the show too here at Chez Underhillo. My not so little anymore hobbit really grooved on the idea of a constant animal companion that you could talk to.

Your info about Pullman being knighted made me think of Wodehouse:

"Do they knight birds like him?"

"Oh, yes, sir. A gentleman of Mr. Trotter's prominence in the world of publishing is always in imminent danger of receiving the accolade."

"Danger? Don't these bozos like being knighted?"

"Not when they are of Mr. Trotter's retiring disposition, sir. He would find it a very testing ordeal. It involves wearing satin knee-breeches and walking backwards with a sword between the legs, not at all the sort of thing a sensitive gentleman of regular habits would enjoy."

[Mithadan]

Hello old friends!

I enjoyed the books when they first came out. They are on my re-read list, along with several thousand pages of other stuff. I too despised the movie, to the point where I have now nearly forgotten it. I will need to check out the series.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Pullman's attitude reminds me very much of Moorcock's "epic Pooh" putdown, and I think both come from a similar place: they are didactic writers, polemicists as much as novelists, and they can't abide the fact that A) Tolkien was not one, and B) what Tolkien "takes as read" in his legendarium (a Deity fundamentally just, hereditary monarchies, a sense that the world doesn't absolutely suck everywhere all the time, and (for Moorcock) not a hint of Marxism) naturally gets their hackles up.

It's hard to understate the degree to which Tolkien's Edwardian Tory Catholicism simply rubs certain politicized literary quarters the wrong way, simply by existing. (Even though, especially if one reads Letters, one finds that his views were not as conventional as appear on the surface; Tolkien was rather Bilbo-ish in that regard).

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

Pullman's attitude reminds me very much of Moorcock's "epic Pooh" putdown, and I think both come from a similar place: they are didactic writers, polemicists as much as novelists, and they can't abide the fact that A) Tolkien was not one, and B) what Tolkien "takes as read" in his legendarium (a Deity fundamentally just, hereditary monarchies, a sense that the world doesn't absolutely suck everywhere all the time, and (for Moorcock) not a hint of Marxism) naturally gets their hackles up.

It's hard to understate the degree to which Tolkien's Edwardian Tory Catholicism simply rubs certain politicized literary quarters the wrong way, simply by existing. (Even though, especially if one reads Letters, one finds that his views were not as conventional as appear on the surface; Tolkien was rather Bilbo-ish in that regard).

There are a certain percentage of folks who just can't take things in context with the era in which a work is written and the background of the writer of that given era. This past generation seems to be one of revisionism and homogenization, rather than perception.

In a slightly different vein in the States, but revisionist nonetheless, there has been concerted efforts for over a century to get the novels The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and The Adventures of Tom Sawyer banned from classrooms and libraries for the alleged racism and racial slurs that were part of the idiom of the era, and a fundamental issue the writer wrestled with in the books themselves.

Humorously enough, Mark Twain was a devout abolitionist, anti-racist and supporter of the emancipation of slaves. But rather than taking things in context and using the book as a learning tool for racism that still remains an issue, bans periodically go into effect.

Twain, for his part, took it in stride, because even in his lifetime there were bannings. Twain wrote in 1885:

"The Committee of the Public Library of Concord, Mass., have given us a rattling tip-top puff which will go into every paper in the country. They have expelled Huck from their library as 'trash and suitable only for the slums.' That will sell 25,000 copies for us sure."

Twain, like Tolkien, remained relatively unrepentant throughout their lives for how their works may be construed. And bravo for that.