Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Lord Shonus]

The subtle knife (Golden Compass sequel) was supposedly cancelled because Catholics said it made them look evil, after the movie was bought out by MURRICA.

Seeming as the books are about killing God and is supposed to be the "atheist" answer to the Narnia books, yeah, it's pretty fair to say it makes them look evil.

Seriously? O_O
1. Lolwut where?
2. Atheist how?
3. Evil how?

Plus, I think the Atheist answer to  C.S. Lewis would probably go along the lines of:
Kids end up in war, Kids find magical wardrobe WHICH DOES NOT EXIST, find magical talking lion WHICH DOES NOT EXIST, who is actually a metaphor for Jesus WHO DOES NOT EXIST. 

Instead of the whole approach involving demons, magic, steampunk, magistratum e.t.c in the golden compass...

Laugh if you want. Phillip Pullman has openly stated that His Dark Materials was written specifically as an anti-religion allegory because he was sick of seeing fantasy that was tainted by the evils of religion.

[Loud Whispers]

Then let him have his fantasy without religion dammit :|

Hey, isn't that basically everything Tolkein and authors like him have done?

...

I stand by my case. The controversy shouldn't exist, because it's all void :\

[Lord Shonus]

The point still stands that the book is virulently anti-Catholic, and thus there is a basis for Catholics to be offended. I don't personally dislike the books because I dislike the anti-religion overtones. I hate the books because Pullman is the second-shittiest writer on the planet.

[palsch]

Seriously? O_O

Less the first two books, but the third has open war against the 'Authority' (God). God is killed and there was much rejoicing. There is then a new Fall (in the biblical sense), embraced as a great thing for humanity.

It's a universe where Pullman inserted God in order to explicitly reject him. It's similar to the The Second Coming TV show, which had Jesus proven as real so humans could decide we are better off without the whole God thing.

[kaijyuu]

Re: Books being about religion or atheism or whatever.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DeathOfTheAuthor



You wanna interpret it as anti-religion? Go ahead. You don't? That's fine too. What the author says it's "really" about is irrelevant. A good piece of fiction stands on its own, apart from the author's intentions. Only badly written pieces of fiction require agreeing with the author on subjective matters in order to enjoy it.

[Loud Whispers]

I hate the books because Pullman is the second-shittiest writer on the planet.

This. 

'Authority' (God)

You see, from an outsider view...

Authority =/= God?

[scriver]

Got it from tvTropes, but since they don't source... Here are an unsourced quote anyway:

Take That - Phillip Pullman has said that the series was a "response" of sorts to the Christian allegory-resembling books, such as The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe by C.S. Lewis. Differs from those books in that Lewis at least claims he didn't originally set out to create allegory and that it worked its way into his books, while Pullman openly stated that he wrote his series to "kill Christianity in the minds of children." Oddly enough, although God is talked about ad nauseum, Pullman never talks about Christ.

After a quick search I can't find anything about "killing Cristianity" except Christian OMG sites, and nothing about it being an answer to Narnia (Though his despise for Lewis is well documented), but Wikipedia led me to this:

"My books are about killing God.""

Re: Books being about religion or atheism or whatever.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DeathOfTheAuthor



You wanna interpret it as anti-religion? Go ahead. You don't? That's fine too. What the author says it's "really" about is irrelevant. A good piece of fiction stands on its own, apart from the author's intentions. Only badly written pieces of fiction require agreeing with the author on subjective matters in order to enjoy it.

Yeah, but disregarding the outspoken intent of the author is a bit silly. Especially when it is so clearly said as here.

[Criptfeind]

Authority =/= God?

If I remember correctly we are indeed told that the Authority, well not a god, is indeed what humans call God.

[Loud Whispers]

Authority =/= God?

If I remember correctly we are indeed told that the Authority, well not a god, is indeed what humans call God.

Seems rather anti-climatic, I was hoping for subliminal messages xP

[kaijyuu]

Re: Books being about religion or atheism or whatever.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DeathOfTheAuthor



You wanna interpret it as anti-religion? Go ahead. You don't? That's fine too. What the author says it's "really" about is irrelevant. A good piece of fiction stands on its own, apart from the author's intentions. Only badly written pieces of fiction require agreeing with the author on subjective matters in order to enjoy it.

Yeah, but disregarding the outspoken intent of the author is a bit silly. Especially when it is so clearly said as here.

Completely disagree. It is entirely reasonable to completely ignore authorial intent, regardless of how outspoken.


The only point where authorial intent matters is when it fills in obvious plot holes and contrived coincidences. If an author is say, anti-semitic, the villain being discovered solely due to their heritage makes a hell of a lot more sense. This is because a pillar holding up the plot is supported solely by their subjective view, and nothing that would make sense even in-universe. Any good piece of fiction will be supported entirely in-universe and will not require similar assumptions on the part of the reader.


Past that it's all allegory and metaphor. The thing about allegories and metaphors is they can be interpreted in innumerable ways, none of which are "right" or "wrong."

[palsch]

One of my favourite interviews on the topic was Philip Pullman talking to Rowan Williams (the Archbishop of Canterbury) in the Telegraph. Williams does take the view that the books are against dogmatism and the use of religion to oppress. He is pretty smart, moderate and has a wicked sense of humour. For example;

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

PP: Which leads us to Mel Gibson. Have you seen that film?

RW: I haven't seen it.

PP: Nor have I, so we can talk about it! That's all right.

RW: We're allowed opinions without the constraints of reality!

As for less obvious messages, the reality of Dust is pretty well done. It's viewed as sin (or the source of sin) by the Church and it's destruction is one of their goals. In reality it is the (source of) conciousness and associated with knowledge from the Eden story in the bible.

[EveryZig]

From what I remember (I read the series in middle school), the thing with god wasn't really an allegory, as in the book the characters literally meet god who was an angel with an inflated ego. (Which is more deist or nonspecific-religion than atheist, due to the existence of angels to begin with.)

[palsch]

From what I remember (I read the series in middle school), the thing with god wasn't really an allegory, as in the book the characters literally meet god who was an angel with an inflated ego. (Which is more deist or nonspecific-religion than atheist, due to the existence of angels to begin with.)

I haven't read it in a while but went through the Mark Reads archives for the series not long ago and got into some discussions about the theology of the series then. The universe is more Gnostic.

The Authority is the first being to gain conciousness in the universe who then leads everyone else to think he was the creator.

It's the philosophy behind the books that's more atheistic. If there were such a deity, we'd be better of killing him.

It's also why the Church of England was smart to associate itself with the books. If someone is saying we are better off without a despotic deity and mindless dogma, saying they are directly attacking your way of life might not be the smartest thing to do.

[Leafsnail]

"My books are about killing God.""

Yeah, but that doesn't mean he's trying to kill god in the mind of children at all, in any way.  Indeed, take it in context and he's just saying that a series that involves killing God should really be getting more controversy from fundamentalists than a series about a boy wizard.

There's definitely elements of anti-organized religion in there, although I'm not sure how it instantly becomes against Catholics:

"That's not to say I disparage the religious impulse. I think the impulse is a critical part of the wonder and awe that human beings feel. What I am against is organised religion of the sort which persecutes people who don't believe. I'm against religious intolerance."

So uh... is there another quote where he explicitly says it's anti-Catholic, or is this another "I read it on some site that didn't source it and now I'm repeating it" kind of quote?

EDIT: And looking at the Narnia thing, he seems to be criticising it due to sexism and stuff rather than because of its Christian message.  I mean, this quote doesn't seem particularly anti-Christianity as a whole to me (if anything it's in favour and just saying that Lewis horribly twists the message):

Pullman also makes the argument that Lewis really isn’t all that Christian. The fate of Susan Pevensie, he told me, indicates “some sort of crazed, deranged Manichaeism. Here’s a simple test: What is the greatest Christian virtue? Well, it’s charity, isn’t it? It’s love. If somebody who knew nothing about Christian doctrine, and who had been told that Lewis was a great Christian teacher, read all the way through those books, would he get that message? No.”

[scriver]

Like I said, I didn't find anything supporting "killing children in the minds of children" or it being atheist Narnia.

And in context, he's saying he should get more controversy than a series about a boy wizard because his books are about killing God. Even if he is being facetious, that's still what he wrote about.

I'm not saying that is a bad thing to write about, so there's no need to rush to his defence. All I was trying to do is point out to LoudWhispers that the reaction from Christian fundamentalist isn't completely out there and baseless.