fett on 4/11/2007 at 16:11
Quote Posted by Fafhrd
vs
These have massively different connotations. Uncia's taking umbrage at the constant use of the first quote, which seems to have caught on memetically, which your Snopes link only proves, since it's only used in the "OMG ATHEIST MOVIE" e-mail, and not, in fact, in any interviews with Pullman himself. It's borderline libelous, since it's dramatically and alarmistically exaggerating his words, with a clear intent of rallying the fundies against him.
Ok - thank you. Now I see the problem.
Still, you do realize that regardless of whether he specifically stated that the killing of God was intended to influence kid's perceptions of deism or spirituality, the fact that they are children's books is going to lead people to the same conclusion? Whether he said, "in the minds of children BWUUAHHHAAHA!" or not, the intention is obvious, and it's most likely the intention that's drawing fire, not the quotes or interviews specifically. I was on the outer fringes of the Fundamentalist movement when The Golden Compass started showing up on bestseller lists, and there was concern from that quarter before they even knew anything about Pullman.
I'm certainly not a Fundamentalist (hell, I'm basically a fan of what Pullman is trying to accomplish) but when I first read the Golden Compass, I thought, "Atheist propaganda." It fairly reeks of it, mainly because as I've stated, it seems that Pullman set out to preach his viewpoint, rather than write an engaging story with characters that could go the distance. It's the atheist equivalent of the "Left Behind" series by LaHaye and Jenkins.
Thirith on 4/11/2007 at 16:43
Quote Posted by fett
I'm certainly not a Fundamentalist (hell, I'm basically a fan of what Pullman is trying to accomplish) but when I first read the Golden Compass, I thought, "Atheist propaganda." It fairly reeks of it, mainly because as I've stated, it seems that Pullman set out to preach his viewpoint, rather than write an engaging story with characters that could go the distance. It's the atheist equivalent of the "Left Behind" series by LaHaye and Jenkins.
I think that this is too simplistic. I also minded The Subtle Knife and especially The Amber Spyglass in this respect, because Pullman's atheist proselytising does get in the way of the story more and more in those two, but he's infinitely better at writing than the Left Behind guys. Just in terms of craft, he's subtle and intelligent. It's in terms of his story and especially his characterisation that he lacks this subtlety much of the time: just look at all the religious characters in the novel. The books would be infinitely better if he acknowledged that even a religious character can be something else than a disgusting, evil asshole.
Uncia on 4/11/2007 at 18:22
Yeah, gonna have to disagree with the whole "atheist propaganda!" bit. It's pretty obvious the sting in the story is against blind, zealot fundementalism, not religion in general. Had he based the story on a different religion's mythos nobody would've cared (did anyone cry that American Gods was anti-religious because Thor ended up being a manipulative bastard who tried to fuck up the world to resurrect himself into power?).
van HellSing on 4/11/2007 at 18:31
Odin, not Thor
Thirith on 4/11/2007 at 18:46
Uncia: Sorry, but that comparison doesn't hold much water. It would if every god in American Gods was actually a debile idiot at best and an evil bastard at worst. In Pullman's trilogy, religion as a whole is evil. Look at his depiction of every single priest - they're slimy, sick, twisted. There's barely a single redeeming feature to any of the religious characters. In His Dark Materials, religion is determined entirely by ignorance and a lust for power. Pullman's opinion on religion is hardly any less extreme than Richard Dawkins'. I honestly think that if you don't see this, you're not reading the book properly. Yes, the religion in the book is one of blind, zealous fundamentalism, but that's the only sort of religion Pullman's fiction acknowledges as existing.
jtr7 on 4/11/2007 at 18:54
Maybe if it was anti-Islam? Or anti-Judaism?
Thirith on 4/11/2007 at 19:07
What about it? I'm afraid I have little to no idea what you're saying, jtr7.
Uncia on 4/11/2007 at 19:20
Quote Posted by Thirith
Uncia: Sorry, but that comparison doesn't hold much water. It would if every god in American Gods was actually a debile idiot at best and an evil bastard at worst. In Pullman's trilogy, religion as a whole is evil. Look at his depiction of every single priest - they're slimy, sick, twisted. There's barely a single redeeming feature to any of the religious characters. In His Dark Materials, religion is determined entirely by ignorance and a lust for power. Pullman's opinion on religion is hardly any less extreme than Richard Dawkins'. I honestly think that if you don't see this, you're not reading the book properly. Yes, the religion in the book is one of blind, zealous fundamentalism, but that's the only sort of religion Pullman's fiction acknowledges as existing.
You're ignoring the fact that Lyra's world is religious in general. The Magisterium is not the end all be all of religion, it's merely a corrupted core using religion as an excuse to hold power. Not the common folk in both Lyra's world and our own, nor their theologians, are portrayed as evil or stupid. So yeah, maybe he was blunt about "religion in positions of ultimate authority is a bad idea", but that's not anti-religion any more than history is.
Thirith on 4/11/2007 at 19:27
That'd be true if it wasn't for the third book. Let's face it, there's a reason why Pullman ends his trilogy with the ultimate war, and there's a reason why he [spoiler]kills off God at the end.[/spoiler] It's not just the earthly organisation that purports to represent the faith that is corrupt and in effect evil - the supernatural/metaphysical superstructure is too.
And if you look at Molly Malone's story in book 3, I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that a large part of that spells out pretty clearly: "The only good faith is lapsed faith." She's perhaps the main character that Pullman uses as a soapbox, as far as I'm concerned; through her, he is pretty much saying that he understands people wanting or needing religion as a crutch, but that this crutch is in effect based on ignorance and/or self-delusion. I would say we have pretty good reasons to believe that her opinions are those that Pullman communicates in the book, because there's not a single element that would suggest a valid counter-opinion.
jtr7 on 4/11/2007 at 19:32
:angel: :confused: :ebil:
Quote:
Had he based the story on a different religion's mythos nobody would've cared....
