|
|
Post by Olive on Jun 27, 2011 12:57:09 GMT -5
Oh God, I already own Paradise Lost but I just found out there's an edition that Pullman wrote the intro for and I must own it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2011 15:30:26 GMT -5
Every single time I re-read Amber Spyglass I promise myself that I won't cry at the end. And I'll be fine and think I've made it without blubbering, and then they realize they need the window to the world of the dead kept open and that last shred of hope is gone. I burst into tears and don't stop until the very end. I guess I have to resign myself to the fact that it's one of those endings that will always make me cry, like Pan's Labyrinth and The Book Thief. I'm DEVASTATED just thinking about it. Books that make me cry are my favourite, and this trilogy is definitely one of them. The criticism most often levelled against the books, often by people who haven't read them, is that they're an attack on Christianity. Although Pullman is a strong atheist - and so am I, for that matter - I think that the series is an attack on organised religion and the Catholic church in particular, and a response to Paradise Lost, rather than a thinly-veiled diatribe against Christianity. It's far less preachy than, say, C. S. Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia series, which I also love, but which descends on occasion into rather unsubtle Christian propaganda. |
|
|
|
Post by Vergissmeinnicht on Jun 28, 2011 20:02:24 GMT -5
Haha, this series is also the reason why I ever tried marzipan. I loved this series. The Amber Spyglass is my favorite. I cried through a lot of it. Omg Pan. Noooo. And Lee Scoresby and his daemon. I'm not really sure why, but I love his character. Although I think I first read it in 7th grade, so I should really reread it soon because I know I missed a lot of the subtext. To echo a couple others: I was really pissed at the TGC movie. I mean, in general it really wasn't that bad...but the ending. They totally screwed that up. I think that the series is an attack on organised religion and the Catholic church in particular, and a response to Paradise Lost, rather than a thinly-veiled diatribe against Christianity. ^ This. |
|
andy
Young Armadillo
Posts: 80
|
Post by andy on Jun 29, 2011 6:43:11 GMT -5
The criticism most often levelled against the books, often by people who haven't read them, is that they're an attack on Christianity. Although Pullman is a strong atheist - and so am I, for that matter - I think that the series is an attack on organised religion and the Catholic church in particular, and a response to Paradise Lost, rather than a thinly-veiled diatribe against Christianity. It's far less preachy than, say, C. S. Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia series, which I also love, but which descends on occasion into rather unsubtle Christian propaganda. has many qualities, but subtlety is not one of them. I mean, the main antagonist of the book is the Judeo-Christian god - how much clearly can somebody express their hostility towards Judeo-Christianity? I've read the Narnia series first when I was eleven and I've met a lot of other people who also read it when they were children and didn't realise the series has Christian overtones. Lewis did not set out to write a book about Christianity so especially in the first books, the Christian overtones are pretty subtle and unless you know quite a bit about Christian theology, you're not going to notice them. I've never heard of anybody who could say the same about His Dark Materials' atheism. |
|
|
|
Post by pintutu on Jun 29, 2011 8:25:05 GMT -5
If I recall correctly, the main antagonist of the trilogy isn't the Judeo-Christian god. The Authority wasn't even really an antagonist and he wasn't really God either. He was just the first angel created out of Dust and told the others that came after that he created them. Also, he's so old and useless by the time the third book rolls around that he dies from a stiff breeze. I suppose that the main antagonist would be Metatron, his second in command, the one who seems to be pulling all the strings. Metatron is also not God either, as I believe he used to be a man before he became an angel. Also, the characters who want to kill "God" are not very morally centred. We have Lord Asriel, who killed a child, and eventually Marisa Coulter gets in on it too, and she is definitely not a good person. So while I can see why people would get upset about Pullman discussing killing God, God really isn't in the story, and the people who want to kill him aren't exactly nice people who the reader can identify with and cheer on.
However, it's been about a year since I've reread these books so I may be wrong about this, but I don't think I am.
I also agree that Pullman is criticizing religious institutions rather than religion itself. Something that always gets to me is when Will is walking through Lyra's world and comes across that priest who makes him drink vodka with him. It comes uncomfortably close to pedophilia and the way Pullman writes that scene makes it very ambiguous as to what actually happened when the priest started kissing Will's cheeks. It's so bizarre and uncomfortable to read.
|
|
|
|
Post by Olive on Jun 29, 2011 8:43:50 GMT -5
Agreeing with the idea that Pullman is attacking the organizations and institutions. It is the Church and various other organizations that are doing evil, and I seem to remember that it was made fairly clear that they were acting on personal ideals rather than in accordance with some sort of Heaven-sent command. When it came right down to it, "God" played no real part in the people did.
|
|
andy
Young Armadillo
Posts: 80
|
Post by andy on Jun 29, 2011 13:09:53 GMT -5
If I recall correctly, the main antagonist of the trilogy isn't the Judeo-Christian god. The Authority wasn't even really an antagonist and he wasn't really God either. He was just the first angel created out of Dust and told the others that came after that he created them. Also, he's so old and useless by the time the third book rolls around that he dies from a stiff breeze. I suppose that the main antagonist would be Metatron, his second in command, the one who seems to be pulling all the strings. Metatron is also not God either, as I believe he used to be a man before he became an angel. The Authority is undeniably the Judeo-Christian god as described by Judeo-Christian scripture. Pullman calls him 'the Authority' because within the books, he is not the God and to call him such wouldn't make any sense, however, Pullman uses the names used in the Bible for God (such as Adonai/the Lord, Yahweh or the Almighty) for the Authority so there's no denying that it's the Judeo-Christian god he's talking about. Besides, even if that was not enough, the references not just to the Holy Scripture, but to Paradise Lost (which is a Christian epic) are so obvious, you can't pretend the book doesn't concern itself with the Judeo-Christian god. Like Milton - who rewrites the history of pagan gods by making them fallen angels -, Pullman rewrites Christian scriptures and makes its god a fallen angel. He especially goes back to the lines in Paradise Lost where Satan says that God sat on his throne, upheld by old repute,/ Consent or custom, and his regal state/ Put forth at full, but still his strength concealed--/Which tempted our attempt, and wrought our fall. (lines 639-642, Book I). But don't Lord Asriel and Marisa Coulter end up saving the world? See, the problem is that in the books, there isn't any indication that religious people can be anything except slaves to horrible church institutions. Such a complete rejection of the possibility that a religious person can also be a good person is bizarre and uncomfortable to read too. |
|
|
|
Post by pintutu on Jun 29, 2011 15:08:21 GMT -5
If I recall correctly, the main antagonist of the trilogy isn't the Judeo-Christian god. The Authority wasn't even really an antagonist and he wasn't really God either. He was just the first angel created out of Dust and told the others that came after that he created them. Also, he's so old and useless by the time the third book rolls around that he dies from a stiff breeze. I suppose that the main antagonist would be Metatron, his second in command, the one who seems to be pulling all the strings. Metatron is also not God either, as I believe he used to be a man before he became an angel. I understand what you're saying. The Authority is what spoke to Abraham and Moses, etc, and therefore in-universe is the Judeo-Christian god. However, Pullman doesn't address the question of WHAT created Dust and the Authority and the other angels. He instead leaves it open ended, which leaves room for belief in an actual God, which makes me think that he is not attacking the concept of God, but rather the insitution built up around it. I think that with the Authority, Pullman is commenting on how religious institutions, or anyone really, can twist things around in order to gain power. What I take away from His Dark Materials is that while religious institutions may be corrupt, there is still a possibility for a higher power to exist because of the wondrous nature of our universe. ^Did I actually just say that? Well it's kind of a combination of Lord Asriel/Marisa Coulter and Will/Lyra isn't it? They bring down Metatron but that doesn't exactly negate all the bad things they did in their lives. I don't know, I'm getting confused as to where I was going with that. See, the problem is that in the books, there isn't any indication that religious people can be anything except slaves to horrible church institutions. Such a complete rejection of the possibility that a religious person can also be a good person is bizarre and uncomfortable to read too. I agree that there isn't enough evidence that religious people can be good people. However, I believe that the witches have a religion, or at least a goddess that they believe in, and several of the witches that we meet are good people. Serafina Pekkala, in particular, is very kind. I think I also read that the Gyptians say prayers as well, and they are also very kind to Lyra, so while none of the Magisterium people we meet are good, some religous people are portrayed well. (However, like I said, I may be mistaken about the Gyptians having a religion) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2011 7:43:25 GMT -5
I don't know a lot about Christian theology and I noticed them, but there's little point in trading anecdotal evidence. I would say that while the Judeo-Christian God is a character in the books, he's not the antagonist by any means. Asriel might believe he is seeking to kill the Authority/God, but really he's fighting the Magisterium and the Metatron, both of whom perverted the will and message o the Authority for their own ends.
Furthermore, I wouldn't say we're asked to align ourselves with Asriel and Mrs Coulter any more than with the Magisterium or the Metatron. All of the factions in the war abuse and manipulate people without regret or shame. Even our protagonists, Will and Lyra, are far from perfect. Pullman might be an atheist, but this story espouses something like pantheism. Dust is everywhere and everything; it is both the sign and the source of sentience, love and beauty.
This series might explicitly reference Paradise Lost and namedrop Judeo-Christian religious figures and organisations, but the attack is against those who abuse their power, and the story has far more moral subtlety and complexity than the Good vs Bad, tempttion-sin-redemption message of The Chronicles of Narnia.
Actually, kissing someone on the cheeks is only associated with sex in the western world. The priest is Russian (or Lyra's world's equivalent) and this wouldn't be seen as at all sexualised. The reason that (male-male) physical contact is sexualised in the West is due to the fear of homosexuality in the past 100-200 years. Three hundred years ago, nobody would think twice about two men holding hands or kissing hello or goodbye. Today, kissing on the cheek is a common nonsexual greeting in countries like Greece, Turkey, Russia and so on, regardless of the sex of those involved. What's more, there are many studies which suggest that as our society becomes more accepting of homosexuality, male-male nonsexual intimacy is becoming increasingly visible and prevalent - the rise of the bromance is the most obvious evidence for this.
|
|
