Philip Pullman is wrong to object to vetting of school-visit authors - Times Online

Great comments Jake.

It's definitely unfortunate that Pullman was criticised so harshly but I do think it was important that there was a public backlash from authors who disagree or at least don't agree but still need to visit schools to supplement their income and promote their books.

From the general public's point of view, if the only response had been Pullman and other heavyweights (who himself admitted that he doesn't 'need' to visit schools very often), then schools might well have formed the impression that all authors would be following suit.

That could easily be the passing impression if you are involved in schools - authors don't like the new legislation, they won't visit schools. so we don't need to bother to invite them.

It's likely that for the majority of authors, the continuing need to make a living trumps the affront/annoyance/cost of this new legislation, whatever they privately feel.

So this group had to speak up and quickly, making it clear that the views of some of these well-known authors did not represent their own.

The views I've read have convinced me that enough people would not be happy with a practice of routinely leaving children with an author, even if they were 'registered'. Which abrogates the need for the registration, to be honest.

Makes you wonder where the idea arose. At some point someone must have sat in a meeting and said."And those author-types! We need to make sure they're all registered, too!"

It's good to have your views added here Joe. I've read the comments you've written on your blog and the same with Tommy and whilst I agree with some of the scenarios painted and the trust that's built up, in essence this scheme does nothing to assuage that or indeed to offer anything in terms of any real assurance. It's hard to be convinced this system is necessary let alone in its proposed 'blunderbuss' style method of dissemination.

I'm curious as to why Pullman comes under fire quite so heavily. The implication in many posts seems to be that he is trying to speak representing all authors. I've seen *nothing* to suggest that. He has ever right to object to a piece of legislation that affects him and his profession (just as you too have and indeed have used with BBC Breakfast etc). If he does so, that does not mean that it necessarily forms an extension that covers all authors views.

As anyone who has followed the debacle will notice, there is a raft of public feeling against this legislation because it is so woefully inadequate and at the same time so cynical. Pullman is self-employed and in a position where he does have a public voice, I fail to see that utilising that to express his concerns warrants such criticism?

Joe, you talk about Pullman's disproportionate response. In fact, his original criticism was in the trade magazine 'The Bookseller' and it is from here that journalists have plucked the story, just as they have plucked many of the other authors who you term 'his posse'! Many of them wrote comments in support of his stance and it is these that have been relayed back in the media. That's the fault of lazy journalism, not an attempt by Pullman and his 'grey haired cronies' as I've seen suggested elsewhere - not by you - to overthrow a system that is being implemented by everyone because they view themselves as different and above this. Horowitz was clear on that point on Newsnight, there are many, many people that this affects and who object to it. In a sense Anthony Browne's comments about dinnerladies is irrelevant here because dinnerladies are one of the groups who do have sustained and regular contact with children in one school so the legislation would have purpose with them as a group.

It's worth stating too that none of the authors have said they would stop giving events to children, just that if this legislation comes into effect, they would stop visiting schools because to do so would implement them in a practice that they disagree with. Whatever one thinks, that does not lack rationale, they are stating a line of action against the thing they are objecting to, surely that is all they are able to do? How is that different to the authors who objected to the National Literacy Strategy and so stated that their writing should not be used for that purpose? It's merely a following through of one's beliefs.

There have been some vicious remarks about Pullman both in terms of some of the articles that have been written - and the unthinking way his stance has been portrayed - and in terms of the comments and blogs that have been made. I've read around this subject extensively and have seen *nothing* that he has written that calls for such personal attack, in fact he has been nothing other than dignified and clear on the reasoning behind his agenda.

(Sorry, that last comment was from me, Joe Craig. For some reason it's come out as an anonymous string of code...)

I think there are two separate areas of inquiry here.

One is whether authors should be vetted (which leads on to the auxillary questions of whether this is the right scheme, whether it costs too much, how it can be made effective etc).
The other question is whether the reaction from the Pullman posse was reasonable.

Surely whatever one's views on the first question, it's hard to defend a group of high-profile authors threatening to boycott schools in response.

So in other words it's possible to be, for example, in favour of vetting in theory, while having reservations about this particular scheme because of the ins and outs of its administration, cost and effectiveness.

And at the same time, one can be anti-vetting (even in theory) and still not join the Pullman gang because of their disproportionate response and confused reasoning.

Perhaps everybody had already realised all of this, but I thought it worth setting out here that 'anti-vetting' doesn't imply 'pro-Pullman' and similarly 'pro-vetting' doesn't imply 'pro-this-particular-scheme'.