The Golden Compass Controversy

[NeonLightChild]

It was the whole Christian/atheist argument that got me reading The Golden Compass by Philip Pullman. Thankfully, my local library had a few copies (though only of the one, I'll have to go somewhere else to get the rest of the trilogy), so I picked one up and finished it within a few days. Not a bad read...I'm not going to review it, but I will say to read it if you get the chance before you see the movie on December 7.

The real reason for this post is to discuss the controversy brought up by Pullman's beliefs, or lack thereof. He is a devout atheist and in fact wrote the trilogy as a counterpoint to CS Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia series, which can be seen as a loose allegory of Christianity. And I guess (from what I've read) that the main beef with the book, besides the whole atheism deal, is the point that somewhere toward the ending, the characters manage to "kill God."

As you can imagine, the Catholic Church and other religious groups are up in arms. How? By not only boycotting the movie (http://www.catholicleague.o rg/release.php?id=1342) (which I'm hoping will backfire and actually make people want to see it) but also comparing it to Harry Potter (http://www.nwfdailynews.com/blog/post/backstage/833/Golden-Compass-questions) and demanding that it be removed from shelves (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071123/compass_books_071123/20071123?hub=TopStor ies).

Having read the book, I'm pretty amazed what people do for some invisible thing. It's a fictitious series...then again, according to some beliefs, the Bible is fiction but hardly any protests against that garner the attention like these. We didn't see large atheist or otherwise nonChristian crowds protesting the release of The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe. But that's beside the point, not that I had one to begin with.

I am just intrigued that this is attracting such attention, even more so than Harry Potter. The book itself wasn't bad, a little cliché and obviously meant for younger people, but the atheism in The Golden Compass is very muted and allegorical if you can even see it at all. Having not read the other two, I can't vouch for them. And then again, because I'm not Christian, maybe I'm just not reading something right...but this is going way overboard and just gives new meaning to how we are letting religion (here's lookin' at you, Christianity) screw us out of good art (among other things), whatever media type in which it is portrayed.

What are everyone's opinions on this, especially if you have read the book?

[dirtyrat]

Holy Cow Batman - that "link" of yours I read has quite alot of comments on it!`Canada in uproar!!`

[LV426]

SPOILER ALERT

Ok I've read all three. I actually read them before the christian panties got in a wad and I remember saying at the time that I was surprised more people weren't upset by the Golden Compass trilogy being made into a movie. I guess I spoke too soon. Anyway the books are not spectacular but they are interesting and fun to read. The Golden Compass is by far the least offensive of the three. In fact this one by itself is hardly even worth getting panties bunched up except that it does discuss how the church uses extreme measures to protect their belief in god and will use any means neccesary, even violate laws and people's rights in the course.

The second book explores this even further and reveals to the children the exact lengths that people will go to when their beliefs are challenged and the deparavities that men and child can descend into. This also touches upon the idea that god is not as godly as the church would have us believe and that even angels are corrupt beings.

The third book takes the last and opens it up for the politics that are going on in heaven. It crosses the boundaries of life and death and shows that not everything is as it seems and that heaven doesn't exist for the dead. That angels are corrupt polititicians holding the first of their kind (god) as a hostage in a feeble state in order to use him as a figurehead for their power struggle and rule.

Yes, god dies, but this isn't a horrid act where upon someone stabs him, shoots him, or blows him up, it's two children that release him from the prison that the angels have kept him in and let him return to add his essence to the "magic" in the universe.

[DarkHunter]

Ahh, the Golden Compass. One of the first books I ever really liked, back when I disliked to read.

Go third grade!

I still have to finish the last book. I mean, I get where the plot was going (the literal name of the Subtle Knife is pretty damned exact). Still, I don't see it as a reason to get stuck up.

Then again I didn't see Harry Potter as that big of a deal either, but go figure. Now they've gotten even MORE ridiculous. Go ahead, try and ban this book too. Rake in the movie sales for good old Philip Pullman. If I were him, I'd laugh my ass off. Especially considering how the religious groups act in the book.

[Hitodama]

Here's my opinion, y'know how some people draw political cartoons about some ruler/dictator in the far east, and then the guy puts a death warrant on the artist? Good political leaders don't do that, so why is it that many religious leaders ban something that challenges their faith or ideals? A political cartoon does the samething to a politican, but they "usually" don't go over board and ban the comic or make the person "disappear".

Like LV said, they would be violating the right of freedom of speech in order to put a stop to the books and movies they find questionable.

Also, the saying "Live, and let live." I really think that is something many of the churches must LEARN and FOLLOW. They are no longer a major power like back in Europe before America was colonized by the English, they shouldn't have the power to protest anything that merely goes against what they say. Is the offending article trying to ban Christanity? Noooo, it just doesn't agree with it, freedom of speech ya twit.

One more thing, I am a Christan, but I am relaxed and at ease...I do not believe any religion is right or wrong, often I think I should become a Monk, and go live in a monastary. Then travel around the world making neat designs in malls only using various colors of sand, and then come back to said mall to find my work of art was destroyed by a 5 year old.

Yes, that is my dream, a world where we all get along, we do not fight over religion, and toddlers not ruining my life's work.

[_Grey_]

Not saying anything here except...

Why are Christians afraid that reading the book would cause atheism? Reading the bible doesn't cause Christianity.

_Grey_

[ThrasherCub]

Why are Christians afraid that reading the book would cause atheism?

Because they have so little faith in their own belief system that they think people will convert to something else at the drop of a religious hat.

[Tux]

Blah, I’d burn the guy at the stake just for having politics in the book. I hate politics.

[RQ]

I think it's hilarious. If a boycott alone wasn't enough to increase interest in (and therefore attendance of) this movie, the people making all the fuss have assured the film's success by comparing it to Harry Potter.

I think of religion as a system of rules and teachings governing morals, beliefs, and behavior/decisions. Given that, it seems an awful lot like the fanatical bible-thumpers here in the U.S. forget where they live - in America, the first and only true religion is always going to be capitalism.

[J.L.R.]

Funny thing is a girl friend of mine, who is also a devout Christian recommended the book series to me, of which I've started reading... and thus I've not drawn the conclusion other people have drawn. In fact I don't see a relation as of yet to real Christianity or that the book is anti-Christian...

Personally, I don't like the book at all. I don't think he is a good author, nor is the work as great as people are saying it is. I started reading it, and I've past page 100 and I still have NO idea what the story is about. Maybe it is one of those things you have to read all the way through, of which I will, to understand everything... However, at this rate, I'm finding the read rather dull, and not nearly as yummy as Tolkien's, Lewis', and Rowling's jewels... I can't even compare them to this book...

As a writer, I always try to work hard to let my beliefs center around the story, and not the story around my beliefs. In short it is the world of my characters that is important, and not my political motivations or conceptions. To me it is always poor authorship to blatantly motivate your stories to express your beliefs, as in the end the stories become preachy rather than letting the readers deside.

My heroes, Tolkien and C. S. Lewis, were both Christians, and yet they both told wonderful stories without the audience having to face the "Salvation" track at the end of the book. Tolkien was a bit more mythic than Lewis, but you can certainly see the Christian influences, especially in Lewis' materials. C. S. Lewis (Clive Staples Lewis or Jack as every called him) was in reality an atheist, or was most of his life, until a fate trip to the zoo... of all places, lead him on a profound quest to Christianity.

My heroien, J. K. Rowlings, for the most part, left politics out of her books as well, so that the reader could draw their own conclusions.

However when books become overtly political they start to cross the line.

My job, as a writer is to tell a good story, and that is what I always intend to do. At least right now, His Dark Materials, doesn't move me one way or the other.

[LV426]

Pullman doesn't thrust atheism down your throat either. And yes I agree JLR, I was a bit bored in the beginning of the book as well. It takes a bit to get into the interesting bits of the story none of which are extreme anti-religion at all. In fact you don't really see the bad side of the church in this book until the end and then in the subsequent books you do see more and more progressively. I think really the christian uprising is a huge over reaction but one that will favor Pullman and New Line Cinemas. The more you protest and try to ban something the more people, especially kids, want to read/see it.

[J.L.R.]

Pullman doesn't thrust atheism down your throat either. And yes I agree JLR, I was a bit bored in the beginning of the book as well. It takes a bit to get into the interesting bits of the story none of which are extreme anti-religion at all. In fact you don't really see the bad side of the church in this book until the end and then in the subsequent books you do see more and more progressively. I think really the christian uprising is a huge over reaction but one that will favor Pullman and New Line Cinemas. The more you protest and try to ban something the more people, especially kids, want to read/see it.

And it isn't like the Roman Catholic Church hasn't ever done anything wrong... :P

[Vendetta]

Pullman doesn't thrust atheism down your throat either. And yes I agree JLR, I was a bit bored in the beginning of the book as well. It takes a bit to get into the interesting bits of the story none of which are extreme anti-religion at all. In fact you don't really see the bad side of the church in this book until the end and then in the subsequent books you do see more and more progressively. I think really the christian uprising is a huge over reaction but one that will favor Pullman and New Line Cinemas. The more you protest and try to ban something the more people, especially kids, want to read/see it.
Also, my understanding is that this is much ado about nothing, as New Line Execs have whitewashed anything resembling anti-Christian sentiment.

And JLR, I think it's a tradgedy to mention Rowling in the same breath as Tolkein. As if somehow her writing and story-telling skills are even remotely close to Tolkein's (new-flash: they aren't.) As for Lewis, I found his books to be about as boring as you're finding Pullman's. Of course I didn't find that Pullman really shoved the religious angle down your throat (at least not until MUCH later in the series) the way Lewis did, either.

[NeonLightChild]

Also, my understanding is that this is much ado about nothing, as New Line Execs have whitewashed anything resembling anti-Christian sentiment.

I'm under the impression that it's not the movie content itself that will potentially cause problems with all the precious, innocent little Christian snowflakes...it's the fact that they'll one day learn (if they haven't so already) that it's based off a book. They go off to read said book, discover it's a series, keep reading and suddenly their little minds are opened and they realize that not everything is all sunshine, kittens and unicorn farts. And by realizing that, they also realize that hey, maybe they can think for themselves!

/being facetious here

I like how Thrasher put it though...as snarky as it was, it tends to be based on more than just a kernel of truth!

[J.L.R.]

Also, my understanding is that this is much ado about nothing, as New Line Execs have whitewashed anything resembling anti-Christian sentiment.

And JLR, I think it's a tradgedy to mention Rowling in the same breath as Tolkein. As if somehow her writing and story-telling skills are even remotely close to Tolkein's (new-flash: they aren't.) As for Lewis, I found his books to be about as boring as you're finding Pullman's. Of course I didn't find that Pullman really shoved the religious angle down your throat (at least not until MUCH later in the series) the way Lewis did, either.

Actually I think Rowlings is a very good writer. Do I place her in the same calibur as Tolkien? Heavens no, but when I think of the most influencial writers come the 20th century, she is one of them, if not for her talent, for the monumental success of her stories. I serious doubt you can compare any writer to the to Tolkien. He is a legend all to himself.

What sets Lewis over Pullman though, other than raw talent, is that his stories were, at the very least, easy to read and follow, as they should be, since they were written for children. Tolkien and he had many arguements over the lack of supposed depth in his material, but both writers imortalized fantasy in their own way. Lewis' works in many ways were much easier to approach than the more grandoise works of Tolkien. While Tolkien's works are richer in detail, each of Lewis' stories had a simple charm that made you want to read more.

What makes Pullman's works hard for me to read is the fact that the author makes no attempts, at least as far as I've read (around page 100) to explain his world. I still don't know what Daemons are, nor their relation to the character. What about Dust? What is it? I feel like Lyra, walking around acting like I know about something, and yet know nothing at all. It is just hard to follow. I still plan to finish the trilogy though, as is a staple before I watch the films.

[LV426]

Daemons are like a physical manifestation of one's soul.

No one really knows what dust is. :-)

[YoungFang]

No one really knows what dust is. :-)

Rusakov particles ;)

[Vendetta]

Rusakov particles ;)
Dark Matter.
(OK, OK, not strictly canon, but I'm pretty sure this is what he was referring to.)

What sets Lewis over Pullman though, other than raw talent, is that his stories were, at the very least, easy to read and follow, as they should be, since they were written for children. Tolkien and he had many arguements over the lack of supposed depth in his material, but both writers imortalized fantasy in their own way. Lewis' works in many ways were much easier to approach than the more grandoise works of Tolkien. While Tolkien's works are richer in detail, each of Lewis' stories had a simple charm that made you want to read more.
Lewis Carroll had simple charm, C.S. Lewis had "hey look at this, a Christ allegory!" Even at a young age I got what his books were about, and I was pretty put off by it.

What makes Pullman's works hard for me to read is the fact that the author makes no attempts, at least as far as I've read (around page 100) to explain his world. I still don't know what Daemons are, nor their relation to the character. What about Dust? What is it? I feel like Lyra, walking around acting like I know about something, and yet know nothing at all. It is just hard to follow. I still plan to finish the trilogy though, as is a staple before I watch the films.
Uh first off, I believe you're SUPPOSED to feel like Lyra. I can't believe you've never read a book where things weren't spoon-fed to you from the first few pages. Also, I'd point out that Tolkein did much the SAME THING in his books.

Also, JLR, just because someone's books sell well doesn't make them a fantastic writer, it just mean the masses (and in this case a majority YOUTHS) bought the book, which by no means makes works masterpieces of literature. This is why John Grisham and Tom Clancy are, while popular writers that sell well, not generally considered literary geniuses.

Also, Tolkein has literally dozens of scholarly and literary treatises written about his works. Rowling has fanfics.

[ThrasherCub]

Lewis Carroll had simple charm, C.S. Lewis had "hey look at this, a Christ allegory!" Even at a young age I got what his books were about, and I was pretty put off by it.
I always loved his books for that reason. It was like reading about religion and philosophy, but with out the dogma and intolerable amounts of boringness.

Uh first off, I believe you're SUPPOSED to feel like Lyra. I can't believe you've never read a book where things weren't spoon-fed to you from the first few pages.
I've always found the best books to be written like that. I always feel kind of lame starting at the characters and watching them go about blindly in a world I know everything about. I want to identify with the character and the situation he is in, not stare completely separated from him like some god.

[Vendetta]

I've always found the best books to be written like that. I always feel kind of lame starting at the characters and watching them go about blindly in a world I know everything about. I want to identify with the character and the situation he is in, not stare completely separated from him like some god.
Uh, if you were witnessing events from the point of view of a god you WOULD know everything. Sometimes a author doesn't spoon feed his audience for reasons. One, he (or she) generally assumes his audience has some brains and possibly some imagination, and secondly, exactly TO empathize with a character who doesn't know what's going on or may be confused about events.

Reading takes imagination and patience, if you guys don't have that maybe you should just wait for the movie adaptations.

[Rascaduanok]

One more thing, I am a Christan
I thought as much from the wording of your first paragraph in that post…

[Destiny]

I believe that Christians believe that it can 'convert' people because it can...I think that if a person reads the book and then watchs the movie over and over, for lack of a better metaphor that people other than me will get, it sort of "plants" a seed in your heart.
Plus I read that in an interview with the writer, a reporter asked what he wanted to
accomplish with his writing for little children, and he replied that he wanted to plant the
seeds in little kids hearts to hate God.
This isn't my opinion, I just know about it. My opinion, however, is that I haven't gotten
into the books or movie so why should I bother. Sure it looks cool, but so do a lot of
movies I haven't watched.
I also believe that Christians have a lot of faith in their religion, but that the
attempts by the devil to make you sway from the path you are on are indeed tempting.
It might also be that kids are more easily swayed because they haven't had time to
really get into their own religion that their parents or whoever is teaching them about.
I'm not saying trying to make you believe my opinions but you can if you want.

-Destiny

[Gilenea]

Christians are up in arms about the whole "atheist childrens books" because they think atheists are targeting children... Get 'em while they're young and all that...

Guess compulsory Bible study when you're 5 years old is okay.

Oh, the irony.

Gil

[Destiny]

Not everyone is taught at that age. I was but later we stopped going to church but I'd never change my mind about what I believe-but that's me, people can make their own choice.

[Destiny]

Also I stopped going to church because we moved to far away to drive that long anymore-we didn't find a another church til years later.

And in case anyone thinks so, I'm not trying to bash anyone else's belief, I'd never do that. So sorry if I offened anyone, that is if you even read my comments.

[blueeyes]

Gilenea, I'd expect it's more the placement of the in-story villains as goatee'd goosestepping versions of the Catholic Church than the target age group, although the latter does certainly make things more problematic. I dunno for sure, but most organizations I work with wouldn't be happy with the name of their teaching authority used to describe a group which abducts and desouls/maims/kills children, sucks away free will and even the will to live, and goes out of its way to find especially cruel and unusual ways to kill people.

Other novels and books get similar criticism, although for some reason other examples like "<i>Thy Kingdom Come: How the Religious Right Distorts the Faith and Threatens America</i>" just can't seem to get the sort of sales for a wide boycott to make the news.

As a disclaimer, I haven't been especially impressed by the novels. It's a remarkable and spectacular example of an ensouled individual wasting a hell of a lot of the resulting creativity, interesting settings, and a wonderful feel, and then having it fall flat on its face with a rather ramblingly irrealistic dialogue, static characters, and a level of deus ex machina rather inconsistent with a multiverse whose 'god' just doesn't care.

Admittedly, I'm only on the second book, and haven't seen the film.

[dirtyrat]

Admittedly, I`m only on the second book, and haven`t seen the film. - blueeyes

Are your reading the novels because of all the controvery?

[blueeyes]

No, I'd heard about it a while ago and have been trying to set some time down to grab the books from a local library and read them. It's just been one of those things that you get to work on, get distracted for a few months, and try again.

I think the the controversy is both late and overblown, but there is some fire to the smoke.

[NeonLightChild]

Christians are up in arms about the whole "atheist childrens books" because they think atheists are targeting children... Get 'em while they're young and all that...

Guess compulsory Bible study when you're 5 years old is okay.

Oh, the irony.

Gil

I was thinking the same thing as blueeyes...your comment is so full of win though. I think it's just the subject matter. Like someone mentioned here before, the Narnia books really are almost like sugar-coated run-and-play-with-the-kitties-in-the-field types of books, just simple short things. I read each one in about 2 evenings. The Dark Materials series is a bit more involved, doesn't mean that longer = more challenging or anything, but the concepts and whatnot might be beyond a younger child's grasp. I'm sure there are books out there that explain things a lot clearer for children than the trilogy.

There's a reason that they recommend that students read the more thought-provoking books when they reach middle or high school. They need to grow up and mature a bit before they can fully understand the subject matter from all angles. (Though even this can be contested a bit, yes.)

[LV426]

I love how the vatican is portraying these books as desolate, hopeless landscapes that offer no hope and saying that the author is stealing all hope from children of salvation.

[Vendetta]

As a disclaimer, I haven't been especially impressed by the novels. It's a remarkable and spectacular example of an ensouled individual wasting a hell of a lot of the resulting creativity, interesting settings, and a wonderful feel, and then having it fall flat on its face with a rather ramblingly irrealistic dialogue, static characters, and a level of deus ex machina rather inconsistent with a multiverse whose 'god' just doesn't care.
Deus ex machina has little or nothing to do with the "actual" theological landscape of a fictional universe, it's just a literary tool, so I don't understand what the issue is. Also, as for that, you need to get to the end of the series before you make that criticism. As for a god who doesn't care, again, you're operating under a false assumption and haven't read the end of the series.

Also, I think it ironic that so many people entirely miss the point of the books because they're too busy with the whole "Pullman is an atheist, zOMG!" I quoted this in the movie thread, but I think it's just as applicable here. Pullman once said about this series:

"I find the books upholding certain values that I think are important. Such as that this life is immensely valuable. And that this world is an extraordinarily beautiful place, and we should do what we can to increase the amount of wisdom in the world."

I find it hard to find anything wrong with those sentiments, regardless of Pullman's religion or lack thereof.

[blueeyes]

The whole "life is immensely valuable" thing strikes me as hypocritical at best, but I understand it's a fairly popular statement.

I think you're underestimating the effects of a work's world on how far readers will be willing to push their suspension of disbelief. Gandalf's resurrection in Lord of the Rings is a traditional case of deus ex machina, but it seldom gathers groands because the local diety is firmly placed on the character's side. Trying that sort of thing in Constantine, on the other hand...

I was also under the impression that Pullman self-identified as an agnostic.