I think you made your point very well. We both know that I don't feel the same, but you supported your sentiment well and I can clearly understand where you're coming from. And you make a strong point in criticizing the author for comparing the book to "Paradise Lost" and the consequences of such a comparison.
Thank you for posting this article. I, too, feel like a buffoon for not interpreting the book this way. I disagree, however, that an atheist could not possibly write anything other than an atheistic book. Perhaps he intended it; perhaps he intended for Dust to be "humanity" or "life" or something more tangible, but that doesn't prevent the book from being interpreted in a more theistic manner.
When reading the article, the author described dust as "divine fabric," "wisdom," "consciousness," etc. This abstract concept, this ambient goodness, eternal positive energy, is more akin to my idea of God. So if Pullman is promoting an ambient goodness or an eternal positive energy, than to me he is promoting God, whether or not he intended to. So in this sense I don't think it is an atheistic book, so much as agnostic book. In it, something out there, but Pullman does not define it or describe it--he leaves that up to us as readers.
But, I have to agree that he is pretty clearly attacking the Catholic Church, and as a parent it is your right to filter anti-Catholic messages for your children. And though you, "don't plan on sheltering my kids, per se, but I'm also not going to have them reading, say, Locke and Mill, either," well, I don't think they would make good bedtime stories, either. But I think it is wise to allow them the opportunity to read Locke and Mill during the high school years, you know, if for some reason they decide that they want to. That way, they're aware of other thought-schools and don't feel forced into something by their parents (breeding backfire), but they're still under your roof and have to listen to your explanations and interpretations, and you can have fantastically scintillating conversations with your children about the great stuff you've just read!
no subject
Thank you for posting this article. I, too, feel like a buffoon for not interpreting the book this way. I disagree, however, that an atheist could not possibly write anything other than an atheistic book. Perhaps he intended it; perhaps he intended for Dust to be "humanity" or "life" or something more tangible, but that doesn't prevent the book from being interpreted in a more theistic manner.
When reading the article, the author described dust as "divine fabric," "wisdom," "consciousness," etc. This abstract concept, this ambient goodness, eternal positive energy, is more akin to my idea of God. So if Pullman is promoting an ambient goodness or an eternal positive energy, than to me he is promoting God, whether or not he intended to. So in this sense I don't think it is an atheistic book, so much as agnostic book. In it, something out there, but Pullman does not define it or describe it--he leaves that up to us as readers.
But, I have to agree that he is pretty clearly attacking the Catholic Church, and as a parent it is your right to filter anti-Catholic messages for your children. And though you, "don't plan on sheltering my kids, per se, but I'm also not going to have them reading, say, Locke and Mill, either," well, I don't think they would make good bedtime stories, either. But I think it is wise to allow them the opportunity to read Locke and Mill during the high school years, you know, if for some reason they decide that they want to. That way, they're aware of other thought-schools and don't feel forced into something by their parents (breeding backfire), but they're still under your roof and have to listen to your explanations and interpretations, and you can have fantastically scintillating conversations with your children about the great stuff you've just read!
Doesn't that sound wonderful?