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)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
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?
If not you, then who? (The Second)
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.