SFReader.com : Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Horror Book Reviews & more      SFWatcher.com : Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Horror Movie Review



  Home | Log In | Register | Calendar | Search | Help
   
SFReader Forums > SF Fiction and Art > Right Now I'm Reading.... > The Golden Compass  Forum Quick Jump
 
New Topic Post Reply Printable Version
32 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page :
 1  2 
[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

Frank
Adept



Email Address Not AvailablePersonal Homepage Not AvailablePrivate Messaging Not AvailableAIM Not AvailableICQ Not AvailableY! Not AvailableMSN Not Available
Date Joined Aug 2005
Total Posts : 628
 
   Posted 8/9/2006 12:24 PM (GMT -4)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
I've started Philip Pullman's The Golden Compass from his trilogy for children His Dark Materials. I'm five chapters in and I love it so far. The writing itself is such a pleasure to read. I hadn't realized how much I missed British authors. Americans just don't write like this, and when they try it sounds silly.
Back to Top
 

Gabe Dybing
Neophyte



Email Address Not AvailablePersonal Homepage Not AvailablePrivate Messaging Not AvailableAIM Not AvailableICQ Not AvailableY! Not AvailableMSN Not Available
Date Joined May 2006
Total Posts : 147
 
   Posted 8/9/2006 12:52 PM (GMT -4)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Frank said...The writing itself is such a pleasure to read.
Agreed. I read the series a number of years ago, when THE AMBER SPYGLASS had just been released. I am in awe of Pullman's style and ability.
 
THE GOLDEN COMPASS is my favorite in the trilogy. The fantasy concepts and the worldbuilding is just so rich (I suspect that Pullman found his idea for human external souls as animals in Scandinavian folklore, in the fylgje).
 
Storywise, THE AMBER SPYGLASS ends in shambles, however, and in that volume especially Pullman's propagandistic agenda begins to intrude too much (it destroys any sense of "reality;" one realizes that the story is being "written" and events are being funneled towards some "purpose"). Pullman proclaims that he set out to write an anti-Narnian children's trilogy. This is odd. It's fine to hate Lewis and his Christian allegories, but to oppose this using the same methods (Lewis sneaks in "mere Christianity" and Pullman sneaks in... I'm not sure, really - traces of pantheism, anti-Christianity for sure, secular humanism, and socialism, maybe?), with the minds of children as your battlefield, seems a result of poor judgment.
 
I'm eager to know what you think when you've finished them.


The bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.
 
 
Back to Top
 

von Darkmoor
Small Press Publisher (and Dancer still)



Email Address Not AvailablePersonal Homepage Not AvailablePrivate Messaging Not AvailableAIM Not AvailableICQ Not AvailableY! Not AvailableMSN Not Available
Date Joined Dec 2005
Total Posts : 2938
 
   Posted 8/9/2006 7:24 PM (GMT -4)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
I read this trilogy back in January. Gabe, you are quite accurate in your assessment. This is a trilogy that fell hard from its grand beginning to a dismal end. Book 1 THE GOLDEN COMPASS is an enjoyable read, filled with very well done characterization and an easily grasped conceptualization of Pullman's world and ideas. A book alive with passion, it's a terrific children's fantasy that equally appeals to adult readers. Book 2 THE SUBTLE KNIFE started out close to - but markedly short of - this level of writing and slowly deteriorated. I liked the concept and the second protagonist but this story is not as fun - as full of a sense of life - as the first book. If the series had somehow ended here, though, it would have been salvageable. Book 3 THE AMBER SPYGLASS pratically destroys much of what's gone before it. Gabe summed it up very nicely above. If Pullman had just written THE GOLDEN COMPASS (with a fitting ending) he would have had a spectacular piece of literature worthy of all the praise heaped upon the entire series. As it stands, I won't recommend the trilogy to anyone and I can't justify recommending just one book of a trilogy - I know I wouldn't stop there once I'd started it.


Clash of Steel Magazine Fantasy Book Reviewer

Back to Top
 

Raph
Stubborn Scholar



Email Address Not AvailablePersonal Homepage Not AvailablePrivate Messaging Not AvailableAIM Not AvailableICQ Not AvailableY! Not AvailableMSN Not Available
Date Joined Oct 2004
Total Posts : 260
 
   Posted 8/11/2006 3:32 AM (GMT -4)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Sorry guys, but I have to disagree with you. I read the trilogy, and thouroghly enjoyed it. Yes, the third book may be the weakest of the three, but I personally didn't have any problems with the way it ended. My wife was upset about the ending purely on the basis that she had come to care for the characters and didn't like the way things turned out (I'm trying not to give Frank any spoilers, so I won't go into specifics).

And Gabe, I think many authors funnel events in the story to reach the conclusion they want, reguardless of how many times you hear of "the story writing itself". Granted, it's better if it doesn't interfere with the "flow" of the story in the process, but I've read much worse examples of forced storylines.

I would definitely reccomend the series.


Mike O.

Back to Top
 

BethS
Adept

Email Address Not AvailablePersonal Homepage Not AvailablePrivate Messaging Not AvailableAIM Not AvailableICQ Not AvailableY! Not AvailableMSN Not Available
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 745
 
   Posted 8/11/2006 11:33 AM (GMT -4)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.

The Golden Compass was intriguing and very original. Beautifully written, too. It was in The Subtle Knife, which was still interesting in its way, that it became clear that this was not a children's series, and I began to suspect the author had an Agenda. The Amber Spyglass left a really bad taste. Not only had the writing deteriorated, but the Agenda became transparent and paramount. The story at times seemed incoherent. The ending may have been appropriate, but it left me feeling sad for days.

~Beth

Back to Top
 

Gabe Dybing
Neophyte



Email Address Not AvailablePersonal Homepage Not AvailablePrivate Messaging Not AvailableAIM Not AvailableICQ Not AvailableY! Not AvailableMSN Not Available
Date Joined May 2006
Total Posts : 147
 
   Posted 8/11/2006 11:45 AM (GMT -4)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.

Of course, Raph, you're right. I just question Pullman's judgment in regards to his ideology.

I wish I could quote him directly, but Lewis wrote or said somewhere that, with Narnia, he was trying to sneak certain Christian concepts and archetypes past the "lions" and into children's minds. His novels may be seen as allegories, and his good friend Tolkien himself believed that allegories made terrible fantasy - good fantasy was feigned history. Pullman has done a better job than Lewis in making his subcreation seem more "real" and not just an aid to a lesson plan, but in his use of Blake's revisionist take on Milton and Biblical concepts he begins to commit the same "errors" as Lewis did.

Tolkien believed, and I think many fantasy writers today continue to believe, that children are some of the sharpest critics, and they hate to feel like something's being "put over" on them. As children grow older and begin to peel the allegorical skin away from Narnia, they often feel somewhat disrespected and manipulated. A perfect example of this reaction is found in Neil Gaiman's short story (in SMOKE & MIRRORS) "One Life, Furnished in Early Moorcock" (I just now tried to find the pertinent passage but sorry, it doesn't matter). I guess what I mean is stories like THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA or HIS DARK MATERIALS (especially in THE AMBER SPYGLASS) begin to put forth such a clear "argument" for a position that one feels like the text is beginning to read like an essay and wonders why it wasn't presented as such in the first place. Why wasn't it? Because it's pitched at children! Sneaking past the lions indeed! Through fun, through narrative, rhetoricians attempt to get children to adopt their pet ideologies, and not necessarily through the head (logos) - they would have written an essay - but through the heart and one's sense of "right" (pathos or ethos).

I recognize that many authors reach some kind of ultimate conclusion in their works (indeed, this feature often tends to characterize some of the best and most classic works of world literature, Tolkien not excluded), but I think Pullman and Lewis are set apart by their methods, their audience, and their level of sincerity. They're just so damn "serious." Other authors seem to make suggestions, but don't lead the reader inexorably to any systematic conclusion. This is part of what Tolkien means by "applicability" in opposition to "allegory."

All that said, I read Pullman at a time when I was not sympathetic to his ideology. I was a kind of Jesus-freak fundamentalist (please don't think I am now!). Later I became Catholic, and now I consider myself post-Catholic. If I read Pullman now, I probably would enjoy the "story" a lot more but still would question his heavy handed "lesson."


The bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.
 
 
Back to Top
 

Raph
Stubborn Scholar



Email Address Not AvailablePersonal Homepage Not AvailablePrivate Messaging Not AvailableAIM Not AvailableICQ Not AvailableY! Not AvailableMSN Not Available
Date Joined Oct 2004
Total Posts : 260
 
   Posted 8/11/2006 2:47 PM (GMT -4)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
You do have some good points, Gabe, and I'm not in complete disagreement with you. Pullman did get a bit heavy-handed there at the end of the series. And being an agnostic myself, I can sympathize with his desire to write a sort of counter-point to the Narnia series, but I can see where it might come across as stooping to the level of your opponent. Kind of like the US using torture on terrorists, but saying it's all right because it's for a good cause. Sometimes you have to put yourself at a disadvantage by restricting your methods, or you run the risk of being a hypocrite, deriding other's methods while using the same yourself.


Mike O.

Back to Top
 

Bill Ward
Biblioholic



Email Address Not AvailablePersonal Homepage Not AvailablePrivate Messaging Not AvailableAIM Not AvailableICQ Not AvailableY! Not AvailableMSN Not Available
Date Joined Jul 2006
Total Posts : 1632
 
   Posted 6/18/2007 4:04 PM (GMT -4)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
I've just finished these and I also think the later two books decline sharply in quality. I don't disagree at all with Pullman's basic worldview, being a secular humanist myself, but it was the story and characters that I thought fell apart.

The Golden Compass was fantastic, I thought, and what it had that the others lacked was a real sense of a rich secondary world. The later two honestly seemed little more than Piers Anthony or Jack Chalker style adventures wrapped in a veneer of careful prose, once the dimension-hopping started things got sloppy and uninteresting. Asriel and Coulter were partial failures as characters as well, they felt increasingly more like pawns in the author's hand. Also GC never felt 'juvenile' to me, whereas when the didacticism came to the fore in the second two books I felt I was being presented with very simplisitc arguements on the level of a young reader, it didn't matter a bit that I already agreed with them.

And as far as using Lewis' methods to create an anti-Narnia I don't think it really worked, after all Pullman resorted to magic and mysticism (the ostensibley 'scientific' Dust) to replace magic and mysticism, which I didn't feel was all that successful in making a materialistic or secular argument. He would have been better off staying in Lyra's world and exploring that, and dealing with those things that fit within his fantastical framework rather than stretching it to the breaking point and back tracking and changing things.

Most of the criticism of these books comes from the angle of them not living up to their potential, and I wouldn't say that the latter two books are devoid of any worth. But I would recommend the first book, which is excellent, divorced of the other two, and I honestly don't think a reader is missing much by omitting them.

And I really wonder how the movies will handle the material of the sequals, big budget filmakers aren't exactly reknowned for their courage.
Back to Top
 

xiaotien
Adept



Email Address Not AvailablePersonal Homepage Not AvailablePrivate Messaging Not AvailableAIM Not AvailableICQ Not AvailableY! Not AvailableMSN Not Available
Date Joined Jul 2006
Total Posts : 562
 
   Posted 6/19/2007 5:41 PM (GMT -4)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
funny, as i actually found the elements
of the story *unoriginal*.
(and it made me feel better as i feel
the same about many aspects of my
own first novel. ha! =)
i think the prose and storytelling was
the strongest for me in the golden compass.

you have all the stock elements of
"cliche" fantasy in the book:

*heroine starts out as an "orphan".
*she is part of a "prophecy" and meant
to save the world.
*a magical object helps her along the way.

it's interesting that so many of you
feel the other two books were not as
strong, esp the final.

not that it means anything, but didn't
he win an award for the final book?
i do think it depends on reading taste.
my crit buddie said the other two books
are even better than the first.

for me, i don't think i will bother
to buy the other two books.
i would be willing to read them if
they were loaned to me, but i wasn't
so attached to the tale that i would
invest money in it again.


cindy p.
a little sweet, a little sour.
Back to Top
 

Bill Ward
Biblioholic



Email Address Not AvailablePersonal Homepage Not AvailablePrivate Messaging Not AvailableAIM Not AvailableICQ Not AvailableY! Not AvailableMSN Not Available
Date Joined Jul 2006
Total Posts : 1632
 
   Posted 6/19/2007 10:50 PM (GMT -4)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
That's a good point, GC was indeed cliche-laden. But I felt the way they were handled and the originality of the world made all those cliches work. If a story can make me smile at cliches rather than roll my eyes at them its definitely doing something right.
Back to Top
 

BethS
Adept

Email Address Not AvailablePersonal Homepage Not AvailablePrivate Messaging Not AvailableAIM Not AvailableICQ Not AvailableY! Not AvailableMSN Not Available
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 745
 
   Posted 6/20/2007 9:18 AM (GMT -4)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
xiaotien said...
funny, as i actually found the elements
of the story *unoriginal*.

you have all the stock elements of
"cliche" fantasy in the book:

*heroine starts out as an "orphan".
*she is part of a "prophecy" and meant
to save the world.
*a magical object helps her along the way.

I started a new thread about this over in Writing.
 
But I wanted to say here that I think these are more archetypes than cliches, though certainly archetypes can become cliches, or at least can be used in a cliched way.
 
Take the magical object. Having one may be a fantasy cliche, but the alitheometer is a most unusual and original manifestation of a magical object.
 
Lyra meant to save the world? Yes, but trust me on this--not in a way you might predict.
 
Pullman took some common Christian archetypes and turned them on their head in this series. (That was, in fact, his agenda in writing the books, and that agenda became increasingly transparent and annoying, particularly in the final book. He let it take over to the point where it ruined the story.)
 
Anyway, to you, those elements appeared cliched, but I can tell you, I never once thought "cliche" when reading The Golden Compass. It seemed astonishingly original to me, mostly because of how he interpreted the archetypes and the world he put them in.
 
~Beth
Back to Top
 

nathan
Sage



Email Address Not AvailablePersonal Homepage Not AvailablePrivate Messaging Not AvailableAIM Not AvailableICQ Not AvailableY! Not AvailableMSN Not Available
Date Joined Mar 2006
Total Posts : 2111
 
   Posted 6/20/2007 2:40 PM (GMT -4)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
WDWard said...

And I really wonder how the movies will handle the material of the sequals, big budget filmakers aren't exactly reknowned for their courage.

      Because hollywood is known as champions of red-state mentality or because they'd be afraid people wouldn't spend money to see something that sticks a finger in their eye? (I'm not arguing I should hasten to add, I just didn't quite get what you were saying due to Red Bull deprevation)

What a great conversation. I really have to read this book. In fact I'm ordering it on Amazon used now. Some of these comments by people here really peaked my interest about themes and percieved themes in writing and the Narnia books in particular.

One are there people who really felt "sandbagged" by the use of fantasy as biblical allegory in the Narnia books? If you count my readings as a child I've probablly read that series more than any other in my life. When I first read them I read them like any other fairy-tales; filled with mystisims, faith as a tool of perseverance, some divine providence, mysticisms. Later I understood CSL was using the bible tales as spring boards and got the references. Then I figured the references except for LW&W perhaps were so oblique they were like Tolkien drawing from Scandanavian myths.
Are you saying people see Narnia as horrific propoganda for Christanity and Tolkien as courageous champion of paganism? I mean, what exactly was Pullman fighting against?
 
Narnia is about the only book series using Christianity-mythos in a genre awash in the mythos of half-a-hundred other cultures. There are a few paganism v. christianity themed books (Mists of Avalon springs to mind) that are big but always the Church is the heavy. The lone Narnia is that threatening in a sea of different minded genre archtypes?
 
I'm asking not arguing. For some reason in my cloistered existance I hadn't realized there was this backlash. I find it really intersting. I mean if someone is an athiest wouldn't, say, Greek mythology and Christian mythology all be just mythology and so fair game for fantasy writing.
 
If one were a pagan do they really think their viewpoint underrepresented in fantasy from 1968 or so?


VIEW IMAGE
"Writing the wet dreams of teenage boys" - Lindsey Llyod, Tangent Reviews
 
Tarantino himself has been forward and unapologetic about his influences. In a 1994 interview with Empire magazine, he said, "I steal from every single movie ever made. If people don't like that, then tough tills, don't go and see it, all right? I steal from everything. Great artists steal, they don't do homages."

Back to Top
 

BethS
Adept

Email Address Not AvailablePersonal Homepage Not AvailablePrivate Messaging Not AvailableAIM Not AvailableICQ Not AvailableY! Not AvailableMSN Not Available
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 745
 
   Posted 6/20/2007 2:57 PM (GMT -4)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
 
Nathan,
Pullman, an atheist, wrote his trilogy as a countering force, I suppose you could call it, to the Narnia books, which he passionately hates. He has said this himself.
The problem is, he let his own agenda carry him away just as egregiously as he claims happened to Lewis in the Narnia books.
As to Tolkien, I assume you're aware that he was good friends with Lewis, and that they both knew they were writing books that reflected their Christian world view. Lewis's was far more overtly Christian and allegorical, whereas Tolkien, who despised allegory, simply incorporated general themes of honor, loyalty, and the light of goodness vs the darkness of evil. He also had other themes to expound on, such as the mechanization of society being the ruin of all that is good and fair. And of course he drew broadly on different sets of mythos. And he created a masterpiece. But he would be most indignant to be accused of representing the "pagan" world view. He viewed his work as entirely "Christian" in its themes.
Not that you personally were saying that, but I just thought I'd spring to his defense anyway. smilewinkgrin
~Beth

Back to Top
 

nathan
Sage



Email Address Not AvailablePersonal Homepage Not AvailablePrivate Messaging Not AvailableAIM Not AvailableICQ Not AvailableY! Not AvailableMSN Not Available
Date Joined Mar 2006
Total Posts : 2111
 
   Posted 6/20/2007 2:57 PM (GMT -4)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Raph said...
You do have some good points, Gabe, and I'm not in complete disagreement with you. Pullman did get a bit heavy-handed there at the end of the series. And being an agnostic myself, I can sympathize with his desire to write a sort of counter-point to the Narnia series, but I can see where it might come across as stooping to the level of your opponent. Kind of like the US using torture on terrorists, but saying it's all right because it's for a good cause. Sometimes you have to put yourself at a disadvantage by restricting your methods, or you run the risk of being a hypocrite, deriding other's methods while using the same yourself.

Man I really, really though I was going to let it go, I mean why hijack the great literary discussion? But then I recalled that quote that goes something like "all it takes for evil to prosper is for good men to do not." Besides you threw it in first--and while one bad faith act doesn't justify another I did make a bargin with myself when I decided not to reenlist, that mainly I wouldn't allow Moral Equivilancy arguments to become passe'
 
Everytime I hear about a journalist or a coalition soldier falling into the hands of those animals I pray that they are treated just exactly like we treat our captured prisoners. Let our soldiers be sleep deprived, let them be made hot and cold, hell, let them be waterboarded. Let them then be feed better than they were in the field, let them talk to the Red Cross. Let them appeal their cases to our Supreme Court.
 
Don't let them be hung from meathooks. Don't let them be subjected to the blowtorch and the power drill like an outtake from the movie Hostel. Don't let a DVD of their heads being sawed off their necks be made and sold at the local bazaar.
 
In order to be a hypocrite you must say one thing then do another, you must say that something someone is doing is bad then do that thing yourself. Our treatmeant of prisoners vs. what they do is not an example of Moral Equivilancy. It isn't even in the same universe.
 
It is Al Quaeda who are the hypocrites. And you are their apologist.
 
I hate to hijack this thread so if you really think that in the nebulous world of etherial ideology that sleep deprevation and a butane torch to your groin is the same thing we can PM or open another thread to postulate as to whether common sense bears out your belief system.
 
Or you could maybe stop slipping poisonous, hateful, insulting leaps of logic into the most innocuous of threads.


VIEW IMAGE
"Writing the wet dreams of teenage boys" - Lindsey Llyod, Tangent Reviews
 
Tarantino himself has been forward and unapologetic about his influences. In a 1994 interview with Empire magazine, he said, "I steal from every single movie ever made. If people don't like that, then tough tills, don't go and see it, all right? I steal from everything. Great artists steal, they don't do homages."

Back to Top
 

nathan
Sage



Email Address Not AvailablePersonal Homepage Not AvailablePrivate Messaging Not AvailableAIM Not AvailableICQ Not AvailableY! Not AvailableMSN Not Available
Date Joined Mar 2006
Total Posts : 2111
 
   Posted 6/20/2007 3:01 PM (GMT -4)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
BethS said...
 
Nathan,
Pullman, an atheist, wrote his trilogy as a countering force, I suppose you could call it, to the Narnia books, which he passionately hates. He has said this himself.
The problem is, he let his own agenda carry him away just as egregiously as he claims happened to Lewis in the Narnia books.
As to Tolkien, I assume you're aware that he was good friends with Lewis, and that they both knew they were writing books that reflected their Christian world view. Lewis's was far more overtly Christian and allegorical, whereas Tolkien, who despised allegory, simply incorporated general themes of honor, loyalty, and the light of goodness vs the darkness of evil. He also had other themes to expound on, such as the mechanization of society being the ruin of all that is good and fair. And of course he drew broadly on different sets of mythos. And he created a masterpiece. But he would be most indignant to be accused of representing the "pagan" world view. He viewed his work as entirely "Christian" in its themes.
Not that you personally were saying that, but I just thought I'd spring to his defense anyway. smilewinkgrin
~Beth

Absolutely. On all points. What I was trying to say rather clumsily was that while Lewis was more purely allegorical with his animism that T used scandanavian mythos to construct his world--thus my link to pagan mythology.
I hope I typed that a little more clearly.
 


VIEW IMAGE
"Writing the wet dreams of teenage boys" - Lindsey Llyod, Tangent Reviews
 
Tarantino himself has been forward and unapologetic about his influences. In a 1994 interview with Empire magazine, he said, "I steal from every single movie ever made. If people don't like that, then tough tills, don't go and see it, all right? I steal from everything. Great artists steal, they don't do homages."

Back to Top
 

BethS
Adept

Email Address Not AvailablePersonal Homepage Not AvailablePrivate Messaging Not AvailableAIM Not AvailableICQ Not AvailableY! Not AvailableMSN Not Available
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 745
 
   Posted 6/20/2007 3:03 PM (GMT -4)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
nathan said...
Raph said...
You do have some good points, Gabe, and I'm not in complete disagreement with you. Pullman did get a bit heavy-handed there at the end of the series. And being an agnostic myself, I can sympathize with his desire to write a sort of counter-point to the Narnia series, but I can see where it might come across as stooping to the level of your opponent. Kind of like the US using torture on terrorists, but saying it's all right because it's for a good cause. Sometimes you have to put yourself at a disadvantage by restricting your methods, or you run the risk of being a hypocrite, deriding other's methods while using the same yourself.

Man I really, really though I was going to let it go, I mean why hijack the great literary discussion? But then I recalled that quote that goes something like "all it takes for evil to prosper is for good men to do not." Besides you threw it in first--and while one bad faith act doesn't justify another I did make a bargin with myself when I decided not to reenlist, that mainly I wouldn't allow Moral Equivilancy arguments to become passe'
 
Everytime I hear about a journalist or a coalition soldier falling into the hands of those animals I pray that they are treated just exactly like we treat our captured prisoners. Let our soldiers be sleep deprived, let them be made hot and cold, hell, let them be waterboarded. Let them then be feed better than they were in the field, let them talk to the Red Cross. Let them appeal their cases to our Supreme Court.
 
Don't let them be hung from meathooks. Don't let them be subjected to the blowtorch and the power drill like an outtake from the movie Hostel. Don't let a DVD of their heads being sawed off their necks be made and sold at the local bazaar.
 
In order to be a hypocrite you must say one thing then do another, you must say that something someone is doing is bad then do that thing yourself. Our treatmeant of prisoners vs. what they do is not an example of Moral Equivilancy. It isn't even in the same universe.
 
 
 
Thank you for saying that, Nathan.
 
~Beth
Back to Top
 

Frank
Adept



Email Address Not AvailablePersonal Homepage Not AvailablePrivate Messaging Not AvailableAIM Not AvailableICQ Not AvailableY! Not AvailableMSN Not Available
Date Joined Aug 2005
Total Posts : 628
 
   Posted 6/20/2007 3:48 PM (GMT -4)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
I loved reading The Golden Compass purely because of the beauty of his prose more so than any other element of the novel. But I must admit I grow increasingly reticent to continue to the second and third books, not only from what I've read in this forum, but also from what my reading group had to say about the sequels. A few loved them more than the first installment, but many others said stop at the first book.
 
Concerning Tolkien's work being themed in Christian or pagan values:
I always read that Tolkien felt the need to write his Middle-Earth saga because the pre-Chrsitian mythos of the English were lost. Some of the myths of the ancient Celts and the ancient Normans have been passed down, and archeologists have uncovered many cultural clues about all of these groups, but the ancient myths of the Anglo-Saxons are largely lost to history, and Tolkien wanted to fill in the blank. He naturally drew on the mythos of surrounding nations and added his own elements, but nowhere did I ever read that Tolkien was deliberately infusing Christian virtues or themes into his masterwork, though one can argue that some Christ-like attributes of Frodo are immediately recognizable.
Back to Top
 

Bill Ward
Biblioholic



Email Address Not AvailablePersonal Homepage Not AvailablePrivate Messaging Not AvailableAIM Not AvailableICQ Not AvailableY! Not AvailableMSN Not Available
Date Joined Jul 2006
Total Posts : 1632
 
   Posted 6/20/2007 4:21 PM (GMT -4)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Just forget the next two Frank, I know you're a gluttonous reader like me and I think your time could be better spent on other stuff.

Nathan: re: the point you asked me I can't imagine Hollywood alienating a huge segment of both their domestic and foreign market by covering the events of the second two books which I won't spoil (even though this is spoiler heavy) only to say that they are completley anti-religious, not anti- any one specific religion (though obviously more in the judao-chritian-islamic trandition). Hollywood doesn't like to make people mad or confused or to ask them to think. And an anti-religious children's movie will definitely ruffle feathers. If the first does well they'll definitely want to do sequals, and I wonder how much rewriting they'll do.

And Beth points out that it isn't a 'big backlash' against Narnia, just Pullman's feelings and motivation. Personally I wish he had either been more successful, or forgot about allegory and moralizing completely, as I agree with him in the main. I certainly don't think there's any shortage of anti-christian or anti-religious themes in fantasy or scifi.

And what you say about torture and moral equivalency is absolutely correct, though I was content to ignore the intitial post myself to avoid going down that path in this thread I certainly won't refrain from giving you 'right on' now that you've responded on that subject.
Back to Top
 

nathan
Sage



Email Address Not AvailablePersonal Homepage Not AvailablePrivate Messaging Not AvailableAIM Not AvailableICQ Not AvailableY! Not AvailableMSN Not Available
Date Joined Mar 2006
Total Posts : 2111
 
   Posted 6/20/2007 5:46 PM (GMT -4)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.

Thanks much.

I understand you saying you meant the other books are uncommercial due to mainstream sensibilities and that Pullman speaks for Pullman and that I didn't inadvertantly overlook a huge "Aslan backlash" somewhere along the line.

I think I'm up to speed, for a minute I thought I'd missed out on something obvious and big.

And note, I'm in general not opposed to any theme per se, I was just a little bewildered because the Narnia stories seem to exist in such isolation that I was wonder how they could have energized that much to-do. I didn't stop reading the Dragonlance novels for instance when I spotted LDS references.

However everyone seems to be saying that P committed the real sin in books 2 & 3--the one of not telling a good story. Still, I'll read the Golden Compass.


VIEW IMAGE
"Writing the wet dreams of teenage boys" - Lindsey Llyod, Tangent Reviews
 
Tarantino himself has been forward and unapologetic about his influences. In a 1994 interview with Empire magazine, he said, "I steal from every single movie ever made. If people don't like that, then tough tills, don't go and see it, all right? I steal from everything. Great artists steal, they don't do homages."

Back to Top
 

BethS
Adept

Email Address Not AvailablePersonal Homepage Not AvailablePrivate Messaging Not AvailableAIM Not AvailableICQ Not AvailableY! Not AvailableMSN Not Available
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 745
 
   Posted 6/20/2007 6:29 PM (GMT -4)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
nathan said...

Thanks much.

I understand you saying you meant the other books are uncommercial due to mainstream sensibilities and that Pullman speaks for Pullman and that I didn't inadvertantly overlook a huge "Aslan backlash" somewhere along the line.

I think I'm up to speed, for a minute I thought I'd missed out on something obvious and big.

And note, I'm in general not opposed to any theme per se, I was just a little bewildered because the Narnia stories seem to exist in such isolation that I was wonder how they could have energized that much to-do. I didn't stop reading the Dragonlance novels for instance when I spotted LDS references.

However everyone seems to be saying that P committed the real sin in books 2 & 3--the one of not telling a good story. Still, I'll read the Golden Compass.

It was the third one where it really broke down. You could probably safely read the first two, but of course by then you might not want to stop.
Enlighten me as to the LDS references in Dragonlance. It's been years since I read those. I know Tracy is Mormon, but I don't recall ever noticing that impinging on his writing.
~Beth
 
Back to Top
 

Bill Ward
Biblioholic



Email Address Not AvailablePersonal Homepage Not AvailablePrivate Messaging Not AvailableAIM Not AvailableICQ Not AvailableY! Not AvailableMSN Not Available
Date Joined Jul 2006
Total Posts : 1632
 
   Posted 6/20/2007 7:03 PM (GMT -4)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
I missed those Mormon references too, but when I read those books I doubt I could tell a Mormon from a Jain.

Book three is probably the biggest break down, but two and three contain the same story arc, whereas one ends satisfyingly enough on its own (though, with plenty left open for sequals to be sure). I think stopping after one wouldn't seem like the quiting in the middle of something that stopping after two would. Its not an absolute horror to read the latter two, I just think most people will feel some disappointment and can probably find better things to get into with their reading time; but everyone is different. I enthusiastically recommend Golden Compass however.
Back to Top
 

nathan
Sage



Email Address Not AvailablePersonal Homepage Not AvailablePrivate Messaging Not AvailableAIM Not AvailableICQ Not AvailableY! Not AvailableMSN Not Available
Date Joined Mar 2006
Total Posts : 2111
 
   Posted 6/20/2007 8:26 PM (GMT -4)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.

the easiest one off the top of my head is the golden glasses used by the kender. Once I spotted that (it's like stone tablets with 10 commandments on them you can use them in whatever story or way you want but it'll be recognized for what it is) I remember seeing other gentle allusions once I caught that but its been 10+ years so they drift...

My point isn't that it was bad, just that I didn't stop reading because of it, as it pertains to the thread discussion of themes.



VIEW IMAGE
"Writing the wet dreams of teenage boys" - Lindsey Llyod, Tangent Reviews
 
Tarantino himself has been forward and unapologetic about his influences. In a 1994 interview with Empire magazine, he said, "I steal from every single movie ever made. If people don't like that, then tough tills, don't go and see it, all right? I steal from everything. Great artists steal, they don't do homages."

Back to Top