jackofallgeeks | 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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

circuit-four.livejournal.com

OK, a challenge to the Catholic church, or even a direct salvo against it, I can accept. But why is that dangerous? I can only speak for myself, but my reaction to the linked article was based mostly on frustration that the Catholic League (and other opponents of Pullman's film and novels) seemed determined that only probably response to material that challenges their authority was to literally demonize it and insist the faithful not read it.

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.

From:

jackofallgeeks.livejournal.com

You? Devil's Advocate? I am shocked. No, really.

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.)

From:

jackofallgeeks.livejournal.com

Further trouble is that I fear most of our society -- the notable subsection being professed Catholics -- most of them aren't intellectually prepared to answer these questions. I spent approximately, oh, 18 years or so in Catholic school and I was shocked by how .little about the faith was taught beyond a 4th grade level. This ignorance is not inherent in the faith itself, but rather a flaw in the people who make up the church, either for not teaching the faith properly or not making the effort to learn fully -- and though I may 'blame' them, I don't imagine that this is ever and always something that an individual can control. But the fact remains that it is so.

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.)