John Noble (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
jackofallgeeks) wrote2007-11-26 07:05 pm
jackofallgeeks) wrote2007-11-26 07:05 pm
His Dark Materials
So, This is interesting. For those just joining us, here's a quick rundown: it has been presented that the His Dark Materials series of childrens' books was written by an avowed atheist, involves a war with the "Magisterium," and 'culminates' in the deat of "the Authority." Before this revelation, I read the books myself -- I really liked The Golden Compass, I felt Pullman made a mistake in the direction he chose for The Subtle Knife, and found The Amber Spyglass to be nonsensical and lacking any real substance. I've read a few articles attacking the series and it's upcoming movie, but the linked article is the first article I've read arguing in favor of the series.
And to be honest, taking the perspective presented in that article the series makes a whole lot more sense -- and for the first time I have to agree it's dangerous. Take a moment to read the article, then join me under the LJ-Cut.
So I think the author of that article has a very firm, sound, reasoned grasp of what His Dark Materials is and what it's trying to say -- in fact, I feel a bit foolish and humiliated that I didn't see it myself. The trouble is, I think they're (presumably) well-intentioned argument does much more harm to the cause of His Dark Materials that good. As I said, until reading the linked article I was indifferent, but now I'm highly suspicious.
The first point I'd like to make is that you'd be hard-pressed to convince me that an avowed-atheist would write anything but an atheistic book, unless by complete mistake, and given the structure and form that His Dark Materials is attributed, I can't believe it was a mistake.
Beyond that, setting up the story as a re-telling of Paradise Lost, except one where Lucifer wins, isn't going to win many supporters.
I never picked up that Dust was a she, but that aside Dust is far more like a pan-theistic deity of some sort and less of The Holy Spirit.
Saying that the book is 'only' anti-orthodox and not anti-Catholic is rather generous; even as a (I believe) well-reasoned and tolerant Catholic I'll admit that The Church is little more beyond orthodoxy; kill that and you kill the church. Never mind that God, the Authority, is made out to be a frail old man, senile and barely cognizant of the world around who isn't killed so much as dies accidentally. Or the fact that, as the article says, The Authority (who is plainly associated with God) is nothing more than an impostor. And noting once again that this is from the pen of an avowed atheist, how can you claim it's not anti-theistic?
Yes, there's a LOT of theology in the book, and it makes a lot more sense now in light of these latest revelations. But when you mean to argue against an idea, it is wise to use the terms and structures you mean to tear down to do it. Theology is the most effective tool with which to attack theology. I now believe His Dark Materials to be a wonderfully-thought out and well-executed series, but also very dangerous from the perspective of faith and theology, especially when given to children.
And to be honest, taking the perspective presented in that article the series makes a whole lot more sense -- and for the first time I have to agree it's dangerous. Take a moment to read the article, then join me under the LJ-Cut.
So I think the author of that article has a very firm, sound, reasoned grasp of what His Dark Materials is and what it's trying to say -- in fact, I feel a bit foolish and humiliated that I didn't see it myself. The trouble is, I think they're (presumably) well-intentioned argument does much more harm to the cause of His Dark Materials that good. As I said, until reading the linked article I was indifferent, but now I'm highly suspicious.
The first point I'd like to make is that you'd be hard-pressed to convince me that an avowed-atheist would write anything but an atheistic book, unless by complete mistake, and given the structure and form that His Dark Materials is attributed, I can't believe it was a mistake.
Beyond that, setting up the story as a re-telling of Paradise Lost, except one where Lucifer wins, isn't going to win many supporters.
I never picked up that Dust was a she, but that aside Dust is far more like a pan-theistic deity of some sort and less of The Holy Spirit.
Saying that the book is 'only' anti-orthodox and not anti-Catholic is rather generous; even as a (I believe) well-reasoned and tolerant Catholic I'll admit that The Church is little more beyond orthodoxy; kill that and you kill the church. Never mind that God, the Authority, is made out to be a frail old man, senile and barely cognizant of the world around who isn't killed so much as dies accidentally. Or the fact that, as the article says, The Authority (who is plainly associated with God) is nothing more than an impostor. And noting once again that this is from the pen of an avowed atheist, how can you claim it's not anti-theistic?
Yes, there's a LOT of theology in the book, and it makes a lot more sense now in light of these latest revelations. But when you mean to argue against an idea, it is wise to use the terms and structures you mean to tear down to do it. Theology is the most effective tool with which to attack theology. I now believe His Dark Materials to be a wonderfully-thought out and well-executed series, but also very dangerous from the perspective of faith and theology, especially when given to children.
no subject
But I'm curious about your characterization of the books as dangerous. Sure, if you're set on your kids believing in Catholicism then you should probably shelter them from anything that presents an alternative view (though, I'd suspect, the backlash would be much worse if they are sheltered and then something gets through than if they're exposed to different views from the start). But, I mean, C.S. Lewis has as much of a Christian agenda in Narnia, and I wouldn't consider it "dangerous" to give to my child.
I mean, Narnia (and Dark Materials) is vastly inferior to lots of other fantasy and science fiction accessible to young adults, so I'd want to protect them out of good taste. :)
no subject
-grins- A point well-made. And I'd generally agree with you on the bits about Pullman, religion, and Taoism.
As to why I think it's dangerous... It presents ideas and perspectives which I feel children are not adequately prepared to handle directly, though that sounds a lot more-heavy handed than I mean -- and especially coming from me, as I generally believe kids have the ability to understand and process a lot more than society gives them credit for.
To understand what I mean I'm afraid you have to concede for a moment that all pretense aside I am Catholic and thoroughly believe "we're right," for lack of a more-gentle phrasing. I don't plan on sheltering my kids, per se, but I'm also not going to have them reading, say, Locke and Mill, either. I think it's important to teach children a consistent world view as they learn and grow, with the goal being to prepare them to think and reason on their own once my role as parents 'completes' (in a sense) when they turn 18. After I've had my time to raise them and they go off to tackle things intellectually on their own, they're free as anyone else to come to their own conclusions.
It's dangerous, I think, because it undermines that whole "consistent world view" I speak of. In the same way that I don't think it's fair or healthy to expose children to, say, the real truth of arguments between their parents or the reality of finances and other facts about life they aren't ready to deal with, I think it's dangerous to present them with a series which speaks fairly directly against what I hold as true and right -- in this case religion.
I'm not sure I'm being very clear. Point of fact, I deal with morally ambiguous subjects regularly. But I am not a child. Does this make sense?
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?
no subject
I have every such intention: I may dislike Locke's philosophy and despise Mill's, but they're both useful perspectives to have an understanding of. And I am most definitely NOT a proponent of willful ignorance! Just because I disagree with someone, even fundamentally, doesn't mean that ignoring them or even really censoring them is an appropriate response: rather, study, debate, and understanding. I believe I can understand someone and still disagree with what they have to say. Such is what I think is appropriate for Pullman -- but as I said, it's a dangerous sort of thing. It's something which needs to be handled delicately, like a gun or a wild animal. It's something which may have the potential for very scintillating conversation, but it's also something which needs to be handled carefully with children.
(Tangentially, just this weekend my brothers and I were talking about Paradise Lost and Dante's Inferno -- completely divorced from Pullman -- and the implications of what it would mean if Lucifer were *not* a rebel angel so much as an agent of God playing out his appointed roll. It's a VERY interesting thing to think about and discuss, but much in the same way as Pullman's book -- from my perspective, of course -- it is not a topic suitable to present to children.
no subject
Now that I read your response, though, I think that - of necessity - I have a different perspective on when/how/whether to expose children to different ideas, since I belong to a minority "religious" tradition. For M and I, there's no getting around the fact that Ruth is fairly early going to be asking questions like, "who's Jesus?" and "what's church?" Unless we lock her in a box, she's going to encounter religion in the ambient culture. So if I approached religious perspectives as dangerous elements to shield her from... I'd be more or less out of luck.
Of course, not everyone is a Catholic, but I presume that you're less worried at least early on about protecting her from the differences with various Protestant sects, as long as the social mores are basically the same, they believe in G-d, Jesus, etc. (so no Unitarians). And of course there are irreligious and immoral elements in the ambient culture (for obvious reasons, I dislike some of that immorality being labeled "secularism" - I'm as concerned about the influence of media images of violence, especially, as most religious folks. Similar to your point: I play Grand Theft Auto, but I'm an adult with a well-developed separation between fantasy and reality.). So it's not as if there's no work to be done raising a child with Christian values and beliefs.
So I guess what strikes me about the "dangerous" designation is that it seems to bespeak a hedging-out rather than a managed encounter with alternate perspectives and beliefs. Maybe where we disagree is on the importance of a coherent world-view to later critical thinking. To me, it seems potentially inimical. Someone who's not only been taught that there's one right way but had alternatives presented (or not presented) as threats to belief is unlikely to approach them in a spirit of critical inquiry when they hit 18 (or 38). Of course, that may be the point. :) But, much as I'd prefer my child to grow up to be an atheist, I'd rather she honestly went out and became a Catholic, or a Wiccan, than hate and fear religion because I'd drummed into her head.
I think this intersects with general issues about how authoritarian to be with children. I'm sure I lean much more anti-authoritarian than you, but even I recognize that you're not going to get away with sitting a two-year-old down and saying, "what do YOU think your bedtime should be?" (though there's an interesting literature on approaching behavioral problems through skills-building rather than punishment; e.g., working with your child to help them organize their room in an efficient fashion rather than just penalizing them for not cleaning it up). In terms of belief systems, we figure the best we can do is, when questions come up, let her know what we believe, help her learn about other things she may be curious about, and let her know that - while we definitely stand behind our beliefs - questions about religion are very difficult and despite what anyone says, no one really definitively KNOWS the answers the way that they know 2+2=4 and they should always be approached with a certain degree of epistemic humility.
Also, what's wrong with Locke? I'd think you'd love him - he's a founder of libertarianism, and his theory of property is based on the claim that our bodies and the Earth are granted to us by G-d.
no subject
But, much as I'd prefer my child to grow up to be an atheist, I'd rather she honestly went out and became a Catholic, or a Wiccan, than hate and fear religion because I'd drummed into her head.
You and I agree here entirely, I think. I'd much rather my children honestly chose this, that, or no religion rather than grow up the be the sort of intolerant, close-minded Catholics who give my faith a bad name. Perhaps the trouble here is a different interpretation of Dangerous or, possibly, something of a knee-jerk over-reaction on my part.
As to the first, it is my belief that Pullman's work (should it become an issue, as it is for parents now but may not be when I have my own kids), as with any other alternate perspective, should be handled as a 'managed encounter,' as you say. I guess the trick here is HOW managed that encounter should be -- when and how (and even if) to defer the encounter, and how to approach it when it comes. I also agree with you that the most reasonable presentation of beliefs is, "this is what we believe to be so, and we stand by that belief, but questions and learning are encouraged." I think questions and learning are paramount to becoming a rational adult (and tyhus staving off most of the extremism floating around).
At the same time, I hesitate with how reasonable one ought to be with children, and at what levels a child is able to manage more. You wouldn't (necessarily) ask a 2 year old what she thinks her bedtime should be, you wouldn't (I hope) let a 6 year old play GTA, and you probably ought not let a 15 year old handle firearms unsupervised (I'm pretty sure). I think Pullman's work is 'dangerous' in the way GTA is dangerous for one who's not equipped or prepared to process it -- though at the same time the whole thing could be completely lost on a child, too. I confess that *I* didn't catch the whole gist of the books when I read them, and though I'd excuse myself by saying I wasn't really looking at them from a religious/theological perspective, most kids probably wouldn't, either.
I've run out of steam, so I'm moving on. Truthfully, I can't think of very much that I had a problem with in Locke's philosophy -- I really just mentioned him so that I wasn't casting stones at Mill alone (who I am pretty sure I dislike strongly). I'd have to re-read Locke again (I've wanted to), but I think I had a few little problems with the details and implications of some of what he had to say.
That being said, I have a few problems with Libertarianism, too, probably with roots in my problems with Locke.
no subject
I don't feel it is anti-theistic precisely because I am in the same religious boat as Philip Pullman. My personal take on the matter is that I hold nothing against those who find solace, comfort, and strength from their beliefs. I've even counseled several people towards the church when they were in times of need.
I'm not up for a huge debate at the moment, but as an atheist, I have to say it is fascinating to think about religion, and to delve into a subject full of mystery and history and humanity where I have little-to-no emotional ties. As a writer, I find it fascinating to read works like Paradise Lost and it's offshoots, and I enjoy playing with religious matters in my own work. It is wonderful to see books like His Dark Materials that seem to spring from a source like my own.
I don't feel like I'm being very clear, but the bottom line is that I think that a work that shows this "Spirit" side of God in such a manner teaches children to think more softly about religion and spirituality and is an effective antidote to the colored focus that the media and historians put on the clergy and church infrastructure.
Dare I call myself a Devil's advocate here? :)
But that approach strikes me personally as far more dangerous, not just to your society, but to the faith that these people purport to be defending. Is it a very robust tradition, if it can't stand up to its adherents' exposure to contrary ideas? Will it remain robust if it doesn't encourage active intellectual engagement with these challenges?
Frankly, the attitude that mere exposure to "bad" or "wrong" or "un-Christian" ideas was wrong for a believer is the very thing that drove me away from Christianity in the first place. (Well, that and a very urgent desire to break certain moral codes that were standing in the way of an intimate friendship. And that turned out to be a pretty good idea too. :p )
Admittedly, my vision of the Catholic Church is pretty jaundiced, given that my family broke pretty catastrophically with it, over a series of very petty matters. (Condemnation of a mixed marriage in the 1950's; rejection of a family member from conversion over a minor point of doctrinal disagreement; insistence we put a ritual ahead of an ailing family member's health in the 1980's.) So when I look at history, while I'm aware of a lot of good and genuinely spiritual traditions in the history of Catholicism, I do tend to focus on the times when the Church IMHO indisputably focused on temporal matters at the expense of spiritual ones.
(I've taken two classes on medieval history and religious heresy, so I recommend you do NOT challenge me on this point, if for no other reason than I'll bore you to death with old class notes. :) But I promise civility and an open mind if you try.)
So I guess my point is that I can see how Pullman could be opposed to earthly religious authority, and still amiable enough with the idea of a transcendent, unnameable spirituality. In fact, I outright dispute that the Dark Materials is in any way atheistic, and also that the atheism of the author makes it impossible for him to write a theistic book.
Personally, I'd say that the cosmology of Pullman's fantasy world is nothing more or less than classically Gnostic. I don't think it's entirely fair to characterize the Authority as "plainly associated with God" nor the books as "a re-telling of Paradise Lost, except one where Lucifer wins." (Admittedly, the article did the latter itself.) In Gnostic cosmology, the categories of "God" and "Devil" just don't match up the same as they do for you, and I think applying Catholic cosmology to it is forcing premises onto it that I just don't think Pullman ever intended.
In summary, I think there's a legitimate question being asked in Pullman's book, and in Gnosticism in general. "Just how the hell do we know this guy is the real Creator, especially given how much misery is wrought on this planet?" If the best answer that the Catholic League and their fellow travelers have to that question is "How DARE you ask such an insolent question..." Well, for me that just raises more questions, maybe even lends some credit to Pullman's challenge that they're more interested in this-worldly authority than next-worldly joy. Because, after all, that's the point I think Pullman and the linked article are trying to make about God -- if it's ruthless, scowling, and deeply wrapped up in power and matter, maybe it's not God. This does not, I think, preclude the many parts of the Catholic legacy that are indeed joyful, wise, and bountiful from being holy -- even in a way that might be surprisingly meaningful to people like Pullman, or myself.
If not you, then who?
In all seriousness, I think my choice of 'dangerous' was, ahem, a dangerous one, in that I've thus far been unable to adequately define the term, or it's relation to the books. I think, perhaps, subversive might be a more-accurate term, but I'll touch on that later.
And I will not dispute your claim the The Church (here meaning the very people in certain positions throughout time) has had a (sometimes grossly inappropriate) interest in worldly power. It's simple fact. I also won't dispute that many people who professedly share my faith are willfully ignorant, a crime I personally can not pardon. The fact that some of the willfully-ignorant are who I find on my side of this discussion does make me more than a little uncomfortable, but I still stand by what I believe.
I have had a drastically different experience with The Church than you did -- mine has always been an open, loving, tolerant environment. There are more than a few mixed marriages in my family, it's plainly evident that some of my good friends are decidedly not-Catholic, and I happily engage in theologically ambiguous mental exercises (a favorite of mine is toying with the idea that Satan's rebellion was no betrayal at all but rather his God-given role to play). I don't think questioning the faith, let alone being exposed to contrary ideas, is inherently wrong. (I do believe SOME things are inherently wrong, but that's neither here nor there.)
The trouble I see, the reason I find this 'dangerous', is I guess a combination of two things. And I think that it's the same thing The Catholic League and others feel, as well. That is, the book is dangerous to kids who are not intellectually prepared for the questions posed. By that I mean properly educated -- that is, it IS a robust faith which can stand on it's own (and has for millennia) BUT this robustness has not yet been communicated to these children. When asked "how can we be sure," they can find no response beyond, "yeah, HOW can we be sure?"
(As an aside, my buddy Daniel mentioned that, frankly, we CAN'T be sure. No one KNOWS. And if pressed, I'd concede the point. However, I find I simply can not function in such a sea of doubt and so I choose to govern myself as though the most likely possibility, as I see it, were fact.)
If not you, then who? (The Second)
Back to the book, it's *subtle*. I personally didn't get it until reading the linked article, despite having read a half dozen OTHER articles against the series, not to mention the series itself. Maybe I'm just dumb. :p Maybe it's a message that would have generally been missed, but I doubt it. The danger is that it seems innocuous enough, but it isn't. It's an attack on the Church, and an arguably difficult question to pose to young minds, but it doesn't seem like it. That's what I think is 'dangerous.'
As I noted in another comment, I'm actually VERY interested in reading the series again in light of this epiphany. I think, if handled properly, that the series could be a very powerful teaching tool, a catalyst for intellectual exercises, and so on whatever. (I also still hold that it's literarialy immature and potentially weakly written, but that's completely beside the point.) But I think that it's more difficult than it seems, and that is why marketing it to children the way it is being marketed (particularly the movie) is, for lack of a better word, 'dangerous.'
(As a final aside a pet peeve of mine is the confusion between The Church and the people who compose the institution, which is a much more complicated subject than I can even allude to in one sentence.)
no subject
I wrote a long reply to your post, then realized it wasn't well written, and most of it was from me being angry about people being angry about the movie. So I'll just leave the issue to rest for now :P.