THE ART OF DARKNESS | December 3rd 2007
Jillian Edelstein
When Philip Pullman started his tale of two 12-year-olds, he thought it would appeal to a few clever kids and a few adults. So far "His Dark Materials" has sold 15 million copies. Robert Butler has lunch with the author ...
From INTELLIGENT LIFE magazine, December 2007
He had written fairy tales, detective stories, melodramas, thrillers and fantasies. But when Philip Pullman embarked on his trilogy, "His Dark Materials", he went back to the most fundamental story of all: the one with the snake, the apple and the fig leaf. He recast Adam and Eve as a 12-year-old girl and boy living in parallel universes, who meet, fall in love and spend the night together. This time God, known as the Authority, fades away and dies. "I thought there would be a small audience," Pullman says, "a few clever kids somewhere and a few intelligent adults who thought, ‘That's all right, quite enjoyed it.'" Well, he got that wrong.
The books have been translated into 40 languages and sold 15m copies, and that's only the beginning. In 2003 and 2004, a stage version was a big hit at the National Theatre in London. This month the phenomenon goes to another level with the release of the film, starring Nicole Kidman and Daniel Craig. It's produced by New Line, which brought us "The Lord of the Rings" 1, 2 and 3. By the time New Line has worked its way through the trilogy, Pullman's rewrite of Genesis 3 will have gone far beyond its bedtime-reading, Waterstone's-shopping, theatre-going constituency. It will have become a story known by people who may not even read.
"His Dark Materials" has its origins in the writings of Milton, Blake and Kleist, but if that sounds literary and erudite, don't worry, it won't show: this is a big-budget fantasy movie playing at a cinema near you, and near pretty well everyone else. Its main characters—Lyra, Mrs Coulter, Lee Scoresby—will shortly be as famous as Dumbledore and Gandalf. But there's a difference. Pullman has written an epic with the entertainment value to capture a mass audience, which simultaneously taps into the same profound themes as Homer and the Bible. It's a story with a dark and powerful undertow: a creation myth for the 21st century.
Its author sits in the study of his farmhouse near Oxford surrounded by books, Black & Decker woodwork equipment, and a rocking horse that he's making for a grandchild. Two pugs, Hoagy and Nellie, run in and out. Next door, our photographer and her two assistants are transforming his kitchen into a photographic studio. ("I've never been on a front cover, have I?" Pullman says to his wife, Jude, who greets this invasionary force with warm and unconcerned tolerance.) During the shoot, his broad face and high-domed forehead change dramatically when he dons a wide-brimmed hat (a little reluctantly) and a beret (more enthusiastically): as an author, he would rather be cast as a Paris intellectual than a Tory squire.
On the dining-room table next door, a pile of new publications and spin-offs sits next to a picture of Pullman with the new James Bond. "His Dark Materials" comprises three books, "Northern Lights" (1995), "The Subtle Knife" (1997) and "The Amber Spyglass" (2000). It's "Northern Lights" that has been made into the movie, called "The Golden Compass"—the name of "Northern Lights" in American bookshops. Genesis 3 runs to 24 verses; "His Dark Materials" weighs in at 1,300 pages. Pullman spent seven years in a shed at the bottom of his Oxford garden, doing his three pages a day (no more, no less). About one in ten pages made the cut. The mathematics alone is impressive.
It all began in the last 15 minutes of a wet Friday afternoon in a classroom in Oxford. Or that's how you would want to tell it. After reading English at Exeter College, Oxford, Pullman did stints working at Moss Bros, the suit-hire shop, and a public library. Aged 25, he qualified as a teacher, mainly, he says, because he liked the idea of the holidays. It was the early 1970s, there was no National Curriculum, no Sats and league tables, and "no bumptious ignorant twit in Whitehall telling me what to do and how to teach". So Pullman found that he had time to tell stories. He believes all teachers should be able to tell a story "at a moment's notice to a class for the last quarter of an hour on a wet Friday afternoon". Not read it, he insists-tell it. "If you're reading out of a book all the time, nothing changes. But if you tell it face to face, you improvise a bit, you play around..."
He set about this task in a typically deliberate way. In the first term, he decided, he would do the births and deaths of the gods and goddesses, their natures and deeds; in the second term he would do the origins of the Trojan war, which would segue into "The Iliad"; and in the third term, he would do "The Odyssey". He prepared each week's story thoroughly so he could tell it without notes. He was teaching three separate classes, which meant telling each episode three times in a week. Again, the maths is impressive. "I must have told each story 36 times."
It was a perfect apprenticeship, giving him "an unsupervised, unnoticed little area of ground" to cultivate his own talent and find out what kinds of stories he could tell. Others might be good at making people laugh; he wasn't particularly. "But I was good at doing exciting stuff that kept them listening." He was drawn to a world of "once upon a time", "meanwhile", and "suddenly", of hidden hands and knocks on the door, of dark, stormy nights, shadows and surprises, ogres and-time and again-orphans. He says he couldn't do the storytelling now. "I'd be sacked, I'd go to prison: ‘You're not fulfilling the requirements of the National Curriculum! Away with you!'"
At each school where he taught, Pullman wrote and produced the end-of-term plays, which enabled him to reach another captive audience: the parents. He treated the parents and children as one audience (he dislikes the business of throwing in sophisticated jokes for the grown-ups) and wrote for both age groups at the same time. "I got better at it. It's to do with taking your story seriously, laughing, yes, but never scoffing at it, always taking the story seriously."
His inspiration came from a family-run toy shop in Covent Garden. "I wanted costumes, I wanted colour and spectacle. My source for all this was toy theatre, those lovely little things that you can get from Pollocks. I've got the lot. I discovered them as a grown-up and fell in love with them." Some of his school plays became children's books: "Clockwork", "Count Karlstein" and "The Firework-Maker's Daughter". Go into a bookshop and Pullman can be found between Marcel Proust and Mario Puzo on the fiction shelves, and between Terry Pratchett and Arthur Ransome in the children's section. The only difference is the cover.
When Pullman got home from school in the evenings, his eldest son would be doing his music practice (he is now a professional viola player) and Pullman would go to his shed at the bottom of the garden. He is the most successful writer since Roald Dahl to have worked in a shed. "My real life began", he says, "when I came home from the job and sat at my table and wrote three pages for the day."
No one could accuse Pullman of under-researching his subject: the heroine of "His Dark Materials" is a 12-year-old tomboy called Lyra Belacqua, and Pullman spent 12 years teaching girls of this age. He taught at three schools in Oxford, one working-class, one middle-class, one in between. The working-class pupils, whose parents mostly worked at the car factories, were very direct and let him know immediately what they thought. The middle-class pupils, many of whose parents were dons, had subtler ways of expressing their disapproval. The three schools were diverse in socio-economic terms, but he discovered that within the classroom the same patterns of behaviour applied. There were certain roles that always had to be filled: the clown, the smelly one who no one wanted to sit next to, and the king and queen.
"If you work out quickly in the first couple of days who the king and queen are, and you direct all your attention to them in the first week or so, get them on your side, you won't have any discipline problems because everyone follows them. They don't follow you. They follow them."
The girls in particular fell into two groups. "There were the sophisticated ones who knew all the words to the pop songs and were aware of style and fashion. The most precocious of those had a boyfriend. They'd give themselves airs, they were café society, they were little Paris Hiltons. And there was another group. They weren't quite as grown-up as that and still liked little ponies and brought me presents and wrote [cards] with a big loop, even a heart-shape, over the letter i." He noticed that if a girl fell out of one group and joined the other, she instantly took on the attributes of the new group.
In the novels Pullman dramatises this shift from innocence to experience through the device of daemons. Everyone has a daemon or animal spirit: when you are young, the daemon keeps changing shape; as you get older your daemon settles into a constant form. The daemons are the single most brilliant idea in the books. Pullman got the idea from paintings by Leonardo da Vinci ("The Lady with the Ermine"), Holbein ("The Lady and the Squirrel") and Tiepolo ("Young Woman with a Macaw"), where there seems to be a psychological link between the person and the creature. Six years earlier, in his children's story "Spring-Heeled Jack", he prefigures this idea with a mournful moth who flutters around as the villain's conscience. The first four words of "His Dark Materials", "Lyra and her daemon...", are the four most important in the trilogy. Everything follows from that.
"I had been thinking about the central question, which is the innocence and experience business, and the transition which happens in adolescence, for a long time. I'd been teaching children of the same age as Lyra, children who were themselves going through this physical, intellectual and emotional change in their lives. The biggest change we ever go through really." Once, when I interviewed Pullman in front of a packed house at the National Theatre, he drew a big laugh when he explained what was so special about this age: "Your life begins when you are born, but your life story begins at that moment when you discover that you are in the wrong family."
The only time an author has any influence over a script, Pullman once told me, is when he sells the rights. He later refined this thought, telling another interviewer that you can't intervene in the early stages of film-making because it's like pushing at fog and you can't intervene in the later stages because you're pushing against a brick wall, but there is a stage in between when it's like pushing at a heavy wheeled object, so it's worth a try. Pullman has followed the making of "The Golden Compass" from a distance. The movie's first screenwriter Tom Stoppard came round for lunch. Pullman read various drafts, then Stoppard left the production, and the director Chris Weitz wrote new versions. Pullman read those and has written some bits himself. He was keen never to be officially employed by the film company: "It means I can tell them to bugger off."
I had first met Pullman in 2003 when writing "The Art of Darkness", a backstage account of the National Theatre production. He told me then: "I'm fundamentally a storyteller, not a literary person, if I can make that distinction. If I wrote a story that had enough vigour and life to pass into common currency and be recounted by people who had no idea that I was the author, nothing would give me greater pleasure."
On one point, however, he did express a firm opinion to the film-makers. "From a very early stage I was keen on promoting the idea of Mrs Coulter being played by Nicole Kidman." Mrs Coulter is the elegant, icy villainess, who adopts the heroine. One performance of Kidman's made him want her for the role: "‘To Die For', where she plays the weather girl who's murderously working her way up the corporate ladder." Kidman has made one notable change to the character. "I'd described Mrs Coulter's hair as black. I was clearly wrong. You sometimes are wrong about your characters. She's blonde. She has to be." He is full of praise for Kidman's blonde incarnation (pictured below). "When she raises an eyebrow, the temperature in the room drops by ten degrees."
Newline.Wireimage.com
The fictional world that Pullman creates is dominated by a cruel and repressive church. The Reformation seems not to have taken place, and Jesus barely exists. Many people have taken offence at this portrait of the church. The Association of Christian Teachers urged its members to boycott the stage production. The Mail on Sunday described Pullman as "the most dangerous author in Britain". Most recently, the American-based Catholic League has called for a boycott of the film on the grounds that it "sells atheism to kids".
Is he expecting controversy? He pauses: "I am beset, not beset, that's too strong, I am attended by crazy people." The day before our interview he had given a reading at the Sheldonian Theatre as part of the Oxford Chamber Music Festival. There were 750 children from primary schools in the Oxford area listening to music and readings. A small boy from one of the schools was taken out "rather ostentatiously" before each of Pullman's readings and brought back in again when the reading was over. "Apparently his parents objected to his hearing anything of mine on the grounds that he might go to hell if he did."
Pullman says that people who are tempted to take offence should first see the film or read the books. "They'll find a story that attacks such things as cruelty, oppression, intolerance, unkindness, narrow-mindedness, and celebrates love, kindness, open-mindedness, tolerance, curiosity, human intelligence. It's very hard to disagree with those. But people will."
How will he respond to those attacks? "A soft answer turneth away wrath, as it says in my favourite book." (Proverbs 15:1.) So he won't argue back? "It's a foolish thing for the teller of a story to answer critics. If you're putting forward an argument, you can argue back and demonstrate why your argument is better than theirs. But if someone doesn't like a story you've written, what are you going to say? ‘Well, you should'?"
Two early moments were pivotal in turning Pullman into a writer. The first occurred in the mid-1950s, when he was nine. His father, an RAF pilot, had been killed in Kenya during the Mau Mau conflict. His mother remarried soon after, and the family sailed to Australia. It was here that Pullman first came across comics and drama serials on the radio: "Clancy of the Outback", "Dick Barton" and "The Adventures of Superman". Pullman "devoured" them. He "brooded" over them endlessly. After lights-out, he would tell stories of his own to his younger brother (his first captive audience), not knowing each night when he started a story, how it would end.
After Australia, the family settled in North Wales. Pullman found an inspirational English teacher at the local school who introduced him to "Paradise Lost". He says he wasn't responding along the lines of "‘here's an interesting argument, yes, I agree with it.' I was moved physically, emotionally and intellectually by the language." He learnt "yards" of Milton. When he began writing "His Dark Materials" (the title itself comes from Milton), he realised after a while that he was telling the same story. "But I didn't think on the one hand, ‘Oh, bugger, I'm telling the same story', or, on the other hand, ‘Oh great, I can copy it.' I just realised that in his patch Milton had been working on the same thing. And a long time ago the original writer of the book of Genesis had been working on the same story."
Several times Pullman reminds me that a work of fiction is not an argument. Perhaps it's safest to say that in "His Dark Materials" he has constructed his own imaginative world so as not to submit to anyone else's. He likes to quote William Blake's line: "I must create a system, or be enslav'd by another man's." His story is a rival to the narratives put forward by two earlier Oxford writers, J.R.R. Tolkien's "The Lord of the Rings" and C.S. Lewis's "The Chronicles of Narnia". Pullman loathes the way the children in Narnia are killed in a car-crash. "I dislike his Narnia books because of the solution he offers to the great questions of human life: is there a God, what is the purpose, all that stuff, which he really does engage with pretty deeply, unlike Tolkien who doesn't touch it at all. ‘The Lord of the Rings' is essentially trivial. Narnia is essentially serious, though I don't like the answer Lewis comes up with. If I was doing it at all, I was arguing with Narnia. Tolkien is not worth arguing with."
Pullman clearly enjoys an argument; Bernard Shaw, after all, is one of his favourite authors. He draws the line at discussing issues with fundamentalists. "You can't communicate with people who know they've got all the answers." His measured, sometimes schoolmasterly demeanour, making nicely balanced rational points (that he has no doubt made before), masks a fierier, more combative nature. As he clears away our lunch in the kitchen-bowls of chicken Thai soup and a plate of whiffy cheese-he talks about a flashy young tv director who fouled up an adaptation of one of his stories. As Pullman offers up one example after another of the director's cluelessness, his hands clasp the table and his face reddens: he is vehement in his disdain.
For Pullman, there's a morality to good craftsmanship. As a young man he wrote verse and studied every kind of poetic metre he could—rondeaus, villanelles, sonnets and sestinas, the more complicated the better. He believes that if you can recognise rhythm and cadence in poetry, then you can do so in prose. It's not hard to see him extending the principle of good craftsmanship more generally. A bad politician is one who reaches beyond his or her capabilities, who doesn't understand how societies are constructed, and who screws things up.
After the soup and cheese, he returns to his armchair in the study and his anger mounts again, when our discussion about climate change ("without question the biggest issue of our time"), leads to the war on terror and Iraq. He says that George Bush is "a moral criminal", and Tony Blair has "a great deal to be apologetic for. Not that he ever will [apologise]. Armoured with his self-righteousness, he will never admit, even to himself, that [the Iraq war] was a ghastly mistake. A terrible, terrible error." Pullman has particular contempt for the sloganeering. He says "the war on terror" is "an utterly stupid phrase. Utterly, ridiculously foolish phrase. No one should ever have used it. Certainly no British politician should ever have repeated it."
Pullman prefers to get involved in politics on a local level, joining the campaign to save a local boatyard from misguided development. In his study there's a model of a wooden boat he's constructing. As a craftsman, he pointed out to me, he is a joiner (not a carpenter); as a citizen, he rarely joins anything. "I'm not an activist," he says, "I'm a passive-ist." But he's increasingly besieged by his admirers, receiving countless invitations "to open a conference, speak at a festival, dedicate a library, write an article, join a campaign".
Most troubling of all is the scale of the fan-mail. He gets hundreds of e-mails and letters. "It's a great source of..." He is momentarily lost for words. "It makes you sigh. Either you ignore these letters and feel bad about it and guilty about it or you take the time and trouble to answer them. And then you regret the time you're not spending on your work." He used to reply to them all. Some writers have piles of unopened letters in the corner of their study, but he worries about finding himself at the other end of the spectrum. "The other way to deal with it was Margaret Mitchell, who wrote "Gone With The Wind". She spent the rest of her life answering letters."
Pullman's grandfather was an Anglican vicar, who could also take the smallest incident and turn it into a story. Was there a time when Pullman believed his grandfather's stories about God?
"When I was a small boy, I believed implicitly everything my grandfather told me. He was grandpa. He knew."
Does he feel a sense of loss now?
"Loss?"
Or sense of absence?
"Loss because there's something gone that I used to believe? I really don't think so. I think it's a gain. It's a gain of a wider perspective. It would be like saying do you feel rather sad that we know the Earth's not flat any more? No, actually, I feel rather better knowing the Earth's round. It's more interesting."
(Robert Butler is a theatre writer and a regular contributor to
Intelligent Life magazine. He blogs about the arts and the environment at
ashdenizen.blogspot.com)
It is good to know that
The reaction to Pullman's interview
Good to Know in Reality or Fantasyland?
>>It is good to know that 1) Robert Butler has declared the pre-Reformation church to be "cruel and repressive"
No, Butler describes Pullman's *fictional* Church, which emerged in an alternative history where the Reformation did not happen. In the contemporary world of this alternative timeline, as described in the book, that Church has indeed evolved to dominate the world, and indeed engages in cruel and repressive acts.
Fiction vs. reality: that's always a key distinction to be made before declaring what it's good to "know."
>>2. Anyone who doesn't want to read or hear Mr. Pullman is "crazy".
No, anyone who makes grand hostile gestures in response to rather harmless intellectual activities like public readings of children's fiction is "crazy" -- or, at least, has seriously screwed up priorities, has delusions of grandeur, and probably feels others have as much trouble distinguishing fiction from reality as they do.
Were Pullman's work a bigoted attack on a group or ethnicity based on demonstable lies, I could understand an ostentatious gesture like the one he describes. But the only thing he attacks in his books are corrupt, power-hungry institutions that rely on mystification and superstition to gull their followers into blind obedience.
(by the way, it isn't Pearson Group engaging in that bit of understandble hyperbole -- it's Pullman who's quoted using the term "crazy" in the interview)
>>3. Pullman will not fight back against such crazy people.
Making a reasonable equivalence between crazy people and religious fundamentalists (i.e. those who insist on the literal interpretation of tales of the supernatural, and make empty ostentatious gestures when challenged), Pullman's entirely correct in not debating them directly. Using the bully pulpit accorded to a popular author is much more sensible. It really is a waste of time trying to reason with the unreasonable.
But since you at least attempted to ground your arguments in reason (despite a severe misreading of the passage referenced in point 1 and a misattribution of a quote), I'm glad to give you the benefit of the doubt.
And, yes, of course this interview is PR for the film. At least it's fairly challenging movie flackery, as opposed to the usual tripe about stars and blue-screen SFX. Actually, New Line is doing its best to make sure that interviews like this remain confined to magazines like this one and _The New Yorker_ and _The Atlantic_. Those promoting the movie to the general public (specifically the cast and director) were instructed by New Line to downplay the religious controversy as much as they could. The fact that it's leaking out into the junket interviews demonstrates the appeal of Pullman's ideas and of his willingness to be open about his secularism and athiesm.
In other words, organised fundamentalist religions (beyond the Catholic Church) may have something to be worried about if the film draws more young (and mature readers) to Pullman's books. This is one of the few cases where I hope they're correct.
The answer is easy; Write
A great work of fiction
I'm not sure I would call Tolkien trivial
seems like you haven't
Characters fulfilling their destiny
Disagree with me on whether LOTR is simple but skip the insults.
Oh, but he has.
I disagree that Sauron is a
Frodo is destined to be in
No, but it is good to know
How to learn more
Religious bigotry? Talk
A Thoughtful Departure
John Powers is angry. I
Close but no cigar...
Rest assured
How is there sympathy here?
There are choices
Weak faith...
Pullman/Golden Compass
Oh I get it now...
Shutting down?
Shutting down strawmen
>> Since when is expressing that you do not like a movie or book part of some nefarious plot?
It isn't, of course -- it's free speech. In this case, though, the free speech is expressing a knee-jerk desire to censor someone else's free speech, sight unseen. This is the paramount challenge facing liberal democracies and open societies: tolerating the intolerant as much as possible without endangering the core values that enable that tolerance.
>> The bizarre reaction I keep reading is that "enlightened" commentators declaring how backwards people are for rejecting this movie.
No, they're backwards because they're rejecting the movie based on their own timidity and based on bogus "reputations" propounded by demagogues and pundits who are mainly interested in keeping their personal gravy trains running down a narrow set of tracks.
>> The attack on the free society is most certainly coming from supporters of the Pullman series, demanding that people see his work regardless of its reputation, and not from his detractors.
Really? Kindly point out examples of Pullman supporters making these odd demands. I wonder how they intend to enforce them --gunpoint and lid-locks? Exhortations and encouragement are not the same as enforceable demands -- if they were, life in our consumer society would be endless toil and torture.
Meanwhile, Pullman's detrators are definitely demanding that their followers NOT see his work, lest they end up in a fiery cauldron somewhere deep beneath Lake Averno. We may mock such a consequence, but the faithful tend to follow orders aimed at avoiding that sort of afterlife, even if it goes against their interests in this life. Which is sorta Pullman's point.
[apologies for the large text -- I have to use the Filtered HTML input format leaves the carriage returns in]
Shutting the shutters
Fear and Demagoguery
>> Not recommending a product is not censorship.
Ah, but they're not just not recommending it -- they're telling their gullible, ignorant followers that they'll go to the Bad Place after they die if they watch this movie or read these books. They're telling parents that these works will corrupt their childrens's souls and bring down the wrath of their brand of Bearded Invisible Sky Man on their little heads.
Moreover, they're making this disavowal of the works pre-emptively, and sight unseen. That's free speech, too, of course, but of a pretty low level of intellectual discourse. That's really what Pullman's outrage emerges from: their intellectual dishonesty and appeal to the lizard brain.
>> How is rejecting the movie timid in any way?
Fear of the trivial unknown based on insufficient evidence. It's timid when one is accepting a non-recommendation based on nothing substantive. When I give a particular product or serivce or course of action a non-recommendation (and I do this frequently as part of my job), it's based on empirical observations and testing. And while some of my clients and employers might accept the non-recommendation simply because it's me making it, I'm always ready to back it up.
So I'd have slightly more respect for those listening to self-appointed moral and cultural arbiters if the latter actually bothered to watch the film and/or read the books before issuining their judgements. There are many reasons not to go to any given film, but this is a pretty sorry, sheep-like one. Especially given the nature of the flock's so-called opinion leaders.
>> Certainly going with the flow would have such enlightened minds as MIL, the New Yorker, and the Atlantic, refrain from the scorn here, but a few have said, -wait a second, he is insulting us, we don't like it-, which makes them "demagogues" interested in the lucrative "gravy trains" of running Catholic Civil Rights organizations, and other such big money business.
A very few, very loud-mouthed thugs like Bill Donohue of America's Catholic League -- a glorified mass mailing list with a "leader" whose main occupation is skulking in midtown Manhattan, waiting for a call on his mobile from sensation-hungry media outlets that lazily equate ownership of a largely inactive membership roll with representation of the Catholic community at large.
I don't know how much money Donohue makes, but he'd be making a lot less without the presence of an ignorant and desparate audience and media platforms that indulge his brand of shallow opportunism. Under the terms of free speech he'd be glad to deny others if he had his druthers, he's entitled to make their opinions known. But let's not accord Donohue and his ilk respect or pretend he's in this for anything other than a paycheque, media exposure, and the ego boost that comes from being a leader (granted, of a rather inactive membership roll). Heck, even the Catholic Church itself tries to keep its distance from this mope, and the Conference of Catholic Bishops has issued a recommendation for the film (which someone actually watched in advance of issuing an opinion).
>> I can cut and paste 20 poorly thought out attacks on critics of this movie in this thread alone
Perhaps so, but none of them have demanded that people be made to see the film. as you claimed. How about copying and pasting just one example from the thread to date supporting your claim?
I'll stop at 5
>> TG, In your post alone
>> TG, In your post alone there are 5 insults hurled at anyone who dares not see the film 1)Gullible 2)Ignorant 3)Intellectual Dishonesty 4)Lizard Brain 5)Ilk
Those insults are hurled at anyone who "dares" not see the film on the basis of demands made by someone who himself has not seen the film. I mean, really, even Joe Breen actually watched movies before applying the Hays Code to them. The people decrying this movie are too lazy to do even that, which makes those taking their recommendations worthy of all of those "insults."
("Ilk" means a kind of person, and while it does often carry a perjorative sense it isn't in and of itself an insult; "intellectual dishonesty" is more of an observation than an insult; the "lizard brain" is something we all have, but not all of us succumb to; gullibility and ignorance are conditions that make one susceptible to religious fundamentalism. But take them all as insults if you like)
In any case, I'm not sure why you bring this up. Are you claiming those insults somehow amount to a demand that everyone see this film or read the books?
>> If this is what you think of people who may not want to see the film...do you really think that your unpleasantries will bring them around to your enlightened status?
I'm not looking to make converts here, simply puncturing holes in spurious and intellectually bankrupt argument. Not to mention having some fun at the expense of bullying prigs like Bill Donohue.
Don't tell me you're trying to bring the people here around to your status, whatever it may be. Good luck with that.
>> I'll disagree with you, in that a critic working for the USCCB does not speak for the USCCB, and certainly does not represent the Catholic Church
Certainly the critic doesn't represent the Church at large, but you can bet that the USCCB is the sort of organisation that has pretty tight controls on whether or not a publication is at least minimally in line with its core values.
>> There are some advantages to having a variety of opinions represented on prudential issues, rather than demanding everyone follow your demands regardless of personal beliefs
Indeed. And while you still have yet to provide one example from this thread of someone doing that, Pullman's detractors are definitely doing that. Fortunately, that tactic usually backfires, and if the film is a hit I'm hoping it will draw more intelligent, thoughtful, and questioning adolescents to Pullman's books, and away from organised religion.
I'll leave it at that.
Well, of course
More Distinctions
>> "Are you claiming those insults somehow amount to a demand that everyone see this film or read the books?", yes, the public will be insulted over and over again if it rejects the film.
Here's the distinction, which it seems may have been too fine for you: I condemn a particular excuse for rejecting the film, rather than rejecting the film. I hope this clarifies similar to the distinction I made between fiction and reality regarding your misreading of Butler, above.
[by the way, it seems that Pullman's fictional Church/Magisterium is intented to represent a fusion of the worst aspects of Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and Protestantism, so it's not really fair to say Pullman is particularly bigoted toward real-life pre- or post-Reformation Catholics. But fairness and close reading isn't a priority for demagogues and pundits]
To make it crystal clear, I'm not condemning the act itself, but rather the motivation behind the act. Act ... motivation; act ... motivation. Hope you see the difference.
That said, yes, I'm comfortable insulting that portion of the public that blindly follows the recommendations of authoritarian thugs like Donohue -- if they treat my words like sticks and stones, they just demonstrate how thin-skinned religious fundamentalists are. Unlike them, I'm not looking for converts.
And again, I'm not demanding they see the firm, just asking that they make a decision on a basis other than "this guy who supposedly represents all Catholics/Muslims/Scientologists/etc and never saw the movie/cartoon/book/etc says so."
Or do you think that's a laudable and reasonable basis on which to reject a film? I don't, and that's why I have disdain for them.
Well that certainly is a clear explantion
Spitefully Anti-Christian
That's quite a response from your friend. Everything I've researched about the film's production indicated that New Line and the director/screenwriter did everything they could to downplay the religious aspect: no mention of JC, no crucifixes or other blatant religious imagery, the Magisterium as more of a political/state organisation with vague clerical style than an overtly religious one. And the first book didn't make the anti-religion message as explicit as the later ones did in any case. All of which should have made it relatively easy to avoid offending liberal Christians who hadn't read the full trilogy, and maximise those boxoffice dollars (always job 1 for the studios).
Which leads me to believe that either your definition of "liberal" might be a bit ... different the usual due to your own ideological views, or that the filmmakers have decided to take a real risk and try to put Pullman's message against organised religion right out there. I'm really not sure which is more likely, so I'll have to wait an see the film myself this weekend to see which pleasant surprise I'll get.
In the meantime, I'd be genuinely interested to hear your friend's specific reasons why the movie (taken apart from the books) is "spitefully anti-Christian" (as opposed to the mildly anti-religion film I'm expecting) -- at least he's operating on an actual screening of the movie. No need to worry about spoilers, since I've read the books, too.
Review will be upcoming on YouTube
Try Reading Beowulf
Done read it
Uh...
Mr. John Powers - In response to your friend (and the Appeal to Authority you succumb to in citing him):
As a practicing Roman Catholic who quite enjoyed the film, I found its religious angle a) sidelined to more interesting concerns of Nicole Kidman wearing backless dresses and Ian McKellen as King of the Polar Bears, b) closer in spirit to Manicheanism (with an equally powerul 'counterforce' to the Church providing a reciprocal universal structure) than any dogma alive to be offended, and c) less of a "Church = Evil" diatribe and more of a rigorous examination of how doctrine can be corrupted by self-interested officials. (If one Church-Goer cancels out another, the judgment of the film here stands moot.)
My first point is flippant, and my second very tenuous, but I think, at least as far as the third idea goes, we can agree that most religions (and especially my own Church) have suffered their share of infamy, deserved and otherwise, from the actions of fallible men attempting to embody a difficult spiritual discipline. While I'm here, we might agree that said religions have also historically been a good place to find censorship and ideologically motivated urges towards censorship of works sight-unseen. In this context, to imagine a further occurrence of the auto-da-fé spirit in the Post-Modern Age is not entirely unreasonable.
Although he is evidently an interested party (as, were we asked "How's $10 mill a picture sound for your books?", we all would be), I will also advise that the film is not "Pullman's bile" since he had (in comparing it to the books) as much to do with the finished product as he did with the first "Die Hard" film. Regarding the interview: as far as puff pieces go, it at least cites some of its sources. Otherwise, it is similarly inconsequential.
Thus, to the novels, the only real source of Pullman's involvement in the whole imbroglio. Sir - you connote a story (which I assume you must have read to describe it as negatively as you do) where a (fictional) religious organization want to sever certain (fictional) children from their (fictional) spirit animals cum immortal souls as a "mean-spirited assault" on children. On one level, I am tempted to ask if the destruction of the Jedi Temple on Coruscant was a veiled metaphor for the destruction of the Monasteries by the Tudors. More seriously, assigning so 1:1 an authorial intent to mock and shame requires a more rigorous critical examination of the relationship between sign and signifier. And on the one hand, the children in the book are heroic figures of compassion, forgiveness, surprising insight and growing maturity - learning by the end that early successes from cunning lies cannot persist in the face of the less pretty but more powerful spirit of the truth, that self-gratification is never ultimately satisfying, and that only love and trust have any meaning in a troubled and difficult world.
"Enchanted", while charming, teaches children that to marry a handsome, loving Prince could be less desirable than the harder choice - to marry a handsome, loving Wealthy Doctor.
On another level, the actual content of the book is surprisingly neutral on the issue of religion - the idea of a pseudo-atheist egalitarian "Republic of Heaven" where "Do as thou wilt shall be the only law" becomes as ridiculous and untenable, in the end, as the bunch of jacked-up Cardinal Richilieus running the Magisterium, and indeed arguably more ruthless. Many characters point out that belief is important in their lives, and wish only the chance to express their own spiritual sense free of external restrictions on intellectual exploration. The Magisterium church is not destroyed, but reverts to an early Christian model of good acts, modesty, and poverty. Elsewhere, fairly interesting thought-experiments (what if God, like Tithonus, could age but never die? would you want to spend eternity ANYWHERE, even Heaven? what is the purpose of evil and sin in a world run by God?) are literalized using a charming fantasy paradigm.
The novels ultimately deal with the painful realization that at a certain point in adolescence, parents, mentors and friends can no longer protect you or determine your path and you must try to stand alone and take responsibility for yourself. That some are equal to this challenge and grow from it and that some are not and are paralyzed is neither hateful, nor really fictional. Pullman merely puts higher stakes on the usual bildugsroman's test of a child's education in the subject of their own life for the purpose of our readerly entertainment.
Also, I must ask - several times in your comments you have cited 'widely held' opinions that these books have no merit, including your own. You don't ask, to close this comment, whether it might be possible that a 'sensible' person might wish to avoid the film, but rhetorically demand whether it could be possible that he would do otherwise. Widely reputable authorities (the Newberry Medal comes to mind) picked the book from obscurity for a major award, and reputable Children's Literature studies at major universities (McGill in Canada and Columbia in NYC among them) incorporate it into their studies. That the work is not to your taste is manifest; that it is shallow, or wholly antagonistic, or at the very least not sophisticated and thought-provoking in its ethical exploration of human existence - not worthy of study, and perhaps a trip to the film for comparison - you have perhaps not made as logically clear.
That only took 920 words
Only 920 words, eh?
Charming folks
Your fifth "insult", Ilk, is
In response to "Pullman/Golden Compass"
Monlogues
>> He presents themes which support HIS worldview, and no other. This is not a dialogue, but a monologue.
Of course -- that's the prerogative of authors, including those of that other famous fantasy series, the Old and New Testaments.
One part of Pullman's monologue, though, is a strong exhortation to question and challenge authority -- presumably including his own. He only asks that the quality of intellectual discourse be elevated above what we've seen thus far regarding the public controversy over the books and film.
bravo Pullman. But rethink Tolkien please
Here's what the US
Since I haven't taken much of a stance
When Pullman got home from
That difficult third volume
That difficult (but rewarding) third volume