So my thoughts on Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials trilogy, which includes The Golden Compass, The Subtle Knife, and The Amber Spyglass.
First, I can't believe this, but it's true: I've finally found a series of books that I would recommend people not read for religious reasons. I don't mean like Narnia and Left Behind, which are Christian
(
Read more... )
> force, and entity, not unlike Star Wars' Force (or Pullman's Dust)
> that is the source and life breath of all, it is good (or at least
> morally neutral), but human attempts to define and live into it are
> flawed and often evil. Had Pullman gone there, he'd have had an
> interesting thesis.
It sounds like we mainly disagree on the strength of Pullman's execution. What you described is pretty much exactly what I got out of reading His Dark Materials.
The Authority definitely does get the short end of the stick, probably because Pullman views real life Christianity as a particularly flawed human construct. However, I think his treatment of The Authority serves a valid literary purpose. There needed to be an obvious 'bad guy' in the beginning so it could be slowly revealed how most everything else, from Asriel, to the bears, to the witches, are about as imperfect. Actually, I think the only societies that came off well are the gypsies and the rolling aliens. A bit of an anarchist preference in the end.
As far as the rest goes, I thought Pullman interwove the main theme well with the coming of age tale and that while his characterization was occasionally unsettling, it was because it was too true to life. I can't say that it was perfect, but I liked it a lot better than fantasy novels that just stick to the usual formula.
I think His Dark Materials could be particularly helpful for young people who are having atheistic doubts. In that frame of mind it's really easy to identify with the portrayal of The Authority and, as evidenced by the behavior of people I like to call "internet atheists", adopt an Asriel like attitude. His Dark Materials does a good job of leading people in that state of mind past mindless rebellion to a hopefully healthier view on society and personal responsibility; considering how little support structure there is for young atheists raised by religious families, I think that's a pretty useful purpose. I wish I'd read it about 12 years ago. Maybe our difference of opinion comes from the different directions we approach the text. from.
Reply
I'm not really seeing it that way, because I'm responding to what I perceive as a lot of anger and pain on the author's personal part being viacariously vented through the destruction of God, the Church, and all things religious and authoritarian and hurtful to him. It almost feels like he's trying too hard to move to a healthy place the he can't yet go. I hope there's a better resource for free thinkers and atheists and non theists and non religious people out there, but I don't know what it might be. Not something I've spent much time looking for. But I hope this isn't as good as it gets.
Reply
Yeah, ugly emotions are portrayed, but good literature often has to do that. For instance, reading Dostoevsky (at least as much as I could bear) made me want to weep for humanity, but I'm glad I did. I think life ought to be taken as a whole and cherished for what it is. Anything less is missing out.
btw, just read your Narnia rant. That's some good theology.
Reply
Leave a comment