Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Books, Criticism & Writing >

Pullman wins Whitbread

08:19 / 23.01.02

Just thought people would like to know. I'm happy...

Grauniad article

Regrettable Juvenilia

08:28 / 23.01.02

*leaps out of seat, punches air*

YESSSSS! GO ON MY SON!

Ahem. Not that these kind of awards mean anything really, in the greater scheme of things. But still - nice to see something as good as The Amber Spyglass get the recognition it deserves.

In your FACE, Potter...

08:56 / 23.01.02

hense discussion on last nights newsnight comparing Rowling and pullman and speculating on a rebirth of fantastique philosophical fiction.

It did occur to me though that this rebirth would have to come from books marketed for children now that the SF bookshelf has been choked on franchised TV space opera tie ins.

Would philip k dick be writing SF or kids books today?

19:01 / 23.01.02

This is a blow for the forces of good, unquestionably. Any speculations as to what this marks the beginning of are bound to be delicious.

(I think PKD will be writing YA fiction soon, as I note Ender's Game has just been re-released in under said banner. Just change the cover of, say, Galactic Pot Healer, and presto! you've got a kids book. Ah, to be young and subversive again...)

[ 24-01-2002: Message edited by: Tempus ]

10:34 / 19.02.02

Further to this:

Pullman Q & A

We're The Great Old Ones Now

10:38 / 19.02.02

This actually made me very cross. Pullman's books are great, but I can't help but feel that he won this prize when Rowling lost out to the new translation of Beowulf (which I alone in all the world bothered to read, and which was utterly drab, dull and, finally, a translation) because he's got the intellectual snob factor and she sells too many copies to be acceptably 'quality'.

10:44 / 19.02.02

...or perhaps because the Harry Potter books are enjoyable, moderately inventive but essentially derivative genre books, whereas Pullamn's trilogy has a scope and imaginative force which was unequalled by any of the other candidates this year... you can be unhappy about Heaney's Beowulf winning the Whitbread, but it's not Pullman's fault. I thought he deserved to win this year. Two different shortlists, two different sets of judges...

Have you read the Pullman trilogy yet, Nick? What did you think?

Edit: duh, yes you have, sorry...

[ 19-02-2002: Message edited by: Kit-Cat Club ]

Regrettable Juvenilia

11:36 / 19.02.02

Plus, Will could take Harry Potter in a fight even with his good hand tied behind his back. Lyra could take the speccy git with both hands tied behind her back (calm down, noncepatrol)...

We're The Great Old Ones Now

11:39 / 19.02.02

I thought they were fairly clever, theory-heavy, angst-ridden, and enjoyable. I thought the first one was by far the best, and after that they went rather astray.

I felt much the same about them as about 'Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon': here was a popular fantasy which it was in some way 'okay' to enjoy. It had the critical seal of approval for intellectuals, where Harry Potter and (in the case of Crouching Tiger) Chinese Ghost Story were somehow 'populist'.

I also think that Pullman's books have as many antecedents as Rowling's, and finally, that he couldn't have won unless the issue had come up first with Rowling, because the whole notion of a children's book winning was so unthinkable until the row when that came up. If I remember correctly from the time, one member of the panel resigned, citing the other judges' refusal to award the prize to something which was just for kids and not 'serious'.

12:09 / 19.02.02

I think The Subtle Knife is the best...

Yes, of course, the Pullman trilogy has antecedents, both in children's literature and in adult - but I think he makes a much more inventive use of his materials than J. K. Rowling, and in doing so I think he does in a sense manage to 'make it new' as well as making it *good*. Rowling seems to me to have half-remembered a lot of things from her own reading (there are a number of only half-hidden 'lifts' from DWJ, not to mention the Malory Towers set-up (complete with train ride, and so on) and to have amalgamated them. The Harry Potter books *do* have a serious intent and many merits, of course, and it may be unfair to be too harsh on Rowling while the series remains unfinished.

As for whether he could have won if Rowling hadn't been up for it in the year Beowulf did... I don't think that has to do with the Whitbread per se - I think that the Harry Potter phenomenon as a whole is responsible for a surge of interest in children's and YA fantasy fiction, which in turn has enabled such books to be considered for prizes such as the Booker and the Whitbread. I do remember the spat over the Whitbread (not sure about the resignation issue tho').

I think Pullman has claims to be a better stylist than Rowling, and I personally prefer his books to the Harry Potter ones; but I think that has less to do with them having 'the critical seal of approval for intellectuals' than saying more to me and being more in line with my taste - and I have fewer problems with the underlying issues in Pullman. I find HP a little 'tired' in a way that Pullman isn't.

Can't say much about Chinese Ghost Story, as I haven't seen it; but I thought Crouching Tiger was a pleasant piece of (essentially) fluff...

20:33 / 26.02.02

I don't know if this is connected but I've definately seen a few more books dealing with the occult for kids. One book, first in a series called WICCA dealing with a young witch and growing up and all that. There was a whole special section put aside for them.
Cash in?
Or are we going to see some more good fantasy books for kids in the stamped to find the next Rowling or Pullman.

I find Pullman stretches my head but Rowling is a bit better written, at least it flows better than Pullman. I'm also waiting for Rowling to finish before making my mind up as she is apparently growing the books with her readers, wonder how she'll approach the whole subject of sex, don't know if she could do as well as Pullman in that respect.

Oh yeah and *high fives Flyboy* Goooo Pullman :-)

Nelson Evergreen

00:39 / 27.02.02

Right now the only person I'd trust to make the (inevitable, surely?) films is Peter Jackson. Either that or Terry Gilliam, who's always a bit handy on the big fucked up visionary fairytale front. Except it wouldn't get made, ever. James Cameron would be perfect for The Amber Spyglass (as great as the first two in places, decidedly saggy the rest of the time). With John Goodman as Iorek Byrnison. Absolutely, yes.

07:23 / 28.02.02

Well, you may be in luck there, because New Line have apparently acquired the film rights for HDM...

al - yes, there have been a ton of derivative fantasy/wicca/occulty children's and YA books put out in the wake of HP (though to be fair, British children's writing has always had a strong strain of fantasy - it just got rather buried by 'issue' books in the early 90s); but there is also some really good stuff out there. I've just been laid up for a couple of days with a stinky cold, and that means YA fiction; I can thoroughly recommend William Nicholson's The Wind Singer, which is rather more like Northern Lights than any of the others, and is the first of a trilogy, and which I thought was *genius*...

Disagree with you about Rowling's writing being better than Pullman's - I think it's less demanding.

Regrettable Juvenilia

09:56 / 01.03.02

(Ignore this and go here.)

[ 01-03-2002: Message edited by: Flyboy ]

08:48 / 03.03.02

I'm about 1/2 way though The Amber Spyglass and I wish that I'd read Phillip Pullman before J K Rowling. Not to say I didn't enjoy the last 2 HP books.
I'll try and condense my point which is long and rambmint to this.
Pullman, JK Rowling, Alan Garner & Prachett. ALll write "Childerns Books" Tha do not however underestimate or patronise childerns intellegence.
Most Fantasy books have the follwing driving forces behind them.
1. The Battle between Good and Evil
2. The Nature of what is Good and Evil
Sometimes those lines are clearly defined, smometimes not. But its the mental sifting of these Ideas that make a book resonate with you long after you have read it.
In my experice the vast majority of "Adult" literature is about relationships. Mike Gayle, John King, that kind of stuff that litters the top ten book lists.
Now I'm in a relationship, I don't feel the need to read about other peoples imaginary ones.
I prefer to read books by Gemmel, Tolkien, Garner, Pullman becase I maybe feel the need to be reasurred of the disticntions between good and evil.
When you grow up, Mortgage, marrige, Kids etc, you find yourself having to make compromises all the time. Till sometimes the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong becomes so blurred as not to make any diffrence.
(or it would be easier to dispach a person you didn't like with a sword or spell, rather then a lenghty and expensive round of solictors letters.)
Sometimes people need to be reminded the there are such diverse concepts as good and evil, so called childerns books are one of the best veichles I know of for doing this.
Long may they continue and long shall we read them.

Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?

07:31 / 04.03.02

quote:Originally posted by Baron Caddilac:
Pullman, JK Rowling, Alan Garner & Prachett. ALll write "Childerns Books" Tha do not however underestimate or patronise childerns intellegence.

Pratchett writes books that insult *everyone's* intelligence.

00:30 / 06.07.05

So there's this professor at my university who teaches children's literature (and teaches medieval lit), and he teaches the first book, called The Golden Compass in N. America. I ask him what he thought of the last book, and he tells me that he's only read the first one.
Uh, excuse me?
He's teaching the first part of a trilogy without knowing how it ends. Is it just me, or is that fucking ridiculous?

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

06:22 / 06.07.05

That's pretty damn silly.

And to go back a couple of years, Pullman's prose is vastly superior to JKR's. The stories are better too. Oh yes, and the characters. I mean, I like JKR, but I just don't think she's as good.
Well, I guess he's been doing it longer...

14:37 / 06.07.05

Pullman, JK Rowling, Alan Garner & Pratchett all write "Children's Books" that do not however underestimate or patronise children's intelligence.

I agree with Haus's response to this, but I also wanted to ask: apart from Pratchett, what are these alleged books that underestimate and patronise children? People are always going on about how different children's books that don't do this are, but I don't think I've ever come across a children's book that did. And I read children's books almost exclusively. Can anyone think of any examples, please? Maybe I just have a different idea about what underestimating/patronising would look like...

ONLY NICE THINGS

14:55 / 06.07.05

There's a series of books about a teenager who dies and becomes a trainee angel ("Flying Solo" or something like that), which IMHO do generally insult the intelligence of their reader, but I think they may be the exception rather than the rule... and they seem to be doing OK, so possibly the average reader does not feel insulted...

14:59 / 06.07.05

Not Annie Dalton's Mel Beeby (Agent Angel/Angel Academy) series? If so, I have to declare an interest there and back away from the discussion, I'm afraid. But the things that came to mind when I was trying to think of intelligence-insulting books were mostly series for teen girls - and, in general, the idea of adding in New Agey 'spirituality' seems likely to push them even further in that direction (am thinking of the shiny Wicca series I keep not getting out of the library, so can't comment further on that, either...)

ONLY NICE THINGS

15:27 / 06.07.05

I'm afraid so, but will speak no more of them.

I can also see that something like the Circle of Three books or the Wicca series might be said to be products designed to hit some selling points, or the Deltora Quest books for boys, which are pretty much Potter methadone, as far as I can tell, and a series like Fearless, with its ridiculous plots, repetitions, huge and frenetic lengthening of every scene, is pretty obviously designed to sell to a teenaged audience, perhaps without a lot of love in the creation - not knowing the author, I wouldn't be able to say. But these only underestimate their readership in the sense that adult fiction underestimates its readership - that is, it sees it primarily as a source of cash rather than a series of beautiful individual snowflakes. Some of them are certainly _bad_, but then lots of books are bad...

19:15 / 06.07.05

Having gone through a small slump in reading I've just begun Northern Lights on strong recommendation from a nephew for whom I bought the books originally. Immediately more satisfying than the Harry Potter books which also have a place in my heart.

I do remember feeling insulted by one of Sue Townsend's Mole books. I'm not sure what exactly I found so terribly objectionable or that it was my actual intelligence that was insulted but my reaction to it was so visceral that I threw it in the bin. Perhaps the way it was toted as a book that I would identify with coupled with a percieved suggestion that I was in any way Molesque was what pushed my buttons. Or perhaps I just found it a bit dull?

There was a Sweetvalley High and/or Babysitter's Club craze amongst the girls in my primary school. I assummed they were twaddle and that if I was a girl and had these marketed at me my intelligence would have been insulted.

In anycase different strokes for different folks and if "ifs" and "buts" were candy nuts blah blah fishcakes.