His Grey Materials
Recently I read about the furore surrounding Philip Pullman's book, The Golden Compass, and its movie adaptation. Essentially, some people claim the movie (and/or the book and the trilogy of which it is the first part) promotes atheism. By this, I can only assume they mean one or both of two things: 1) that it promotes atheistic ideas in such a way as to make them more obvious and more attractive, as compared to other ideas in the film and in other films; and 2) that the money made from the film will go to benefit atheist causes more than other causes. The reason I assume this is that if the case was that atheism was promoted in such a way that it seemed less attractive or benefited atheist causes less so than other causes, it would not be an issue to the complainants.
My personal stand on this has three legs; it is a Tripos if you like, of sorts.
Firstly, the converse of atheism is theism, not Christianity. The Bible says, "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.'" Hence, it clearly thinks of atheism as human foolishness. However, Christianity teaches that while all things (excepting those clearly labelled as evil) are lawful, not all things edify. It is thus left to the Christian's Spirit-informed conscience to decide, based on how much it offends others or acts as a stumbling-block to other Christians. The principle of charity must be observed; that is, to allow the widest latitude that is not immorality. Christians are also told to make it their ambition to lead a quiet life, to mind their own business, and to work with their hands, so that their daily lives will win the respect of others and that they will not be dependent on anybody else. The first leg of this argument therefore points to a fight over grey-area movies not being worth the Christian's time.
But is the His Dark Materials trilogy really in a grey area concerning the existence of God? Well, frankly, having read the series, I am not convinced it is meant to be some sort of anti-Lewisian tract. It is presented as fantasy, and despite involving gnostic ideas and such, it has nothing about it which denies the existence of God. Rather, it postulates a world in which the presence or absence of the vital spark can be measured quantitatively – hence, applied theology would be something like high-energy physics in our world. This is not a unique fantasy trope. Consider Frankenstein, for example. The use of this trope is in keeping with Pullman's preference for Victorian literary ideas. If anything, the world he describes is one in which a churchlike hierarchy conspires to hide the truth as they know it, and in which the apprehension of God is both easier and yet more confusing than it would seem to be in ours. It is a sort of agnostic theist perspective, I suppose. The second leg of this argument therefore points to the material as not being inherently atheist as compared to other SF or fantasy literature. (Actually, Agatha Christie detective novels are probably more atheist.)
Lastly, after reading Pullman's earlier children's novels and comparing them with His Dark Materials, I have begun to think that the latter constitutes Swiftean satire rather than true fantasy. The episodic nature of the text and the deliberate parodying of church, state, quantification of human traits, education and other societal structures lead me to believe that the books are misclassified as Children's Fantasy. Rather, like Rabelais's Gargantua & Pantagruel or the original Gulliver's Travels, they are not fantasy but social satire. And the nature of satire is to lead us to recognise the more unsavoury aspects of society, to mock them, and hopefully salvage the good that is left. The third leg of this argument therefore suggests that the material is not atheist in nature, but a satire on dogmatism in every area of human society.
None of these three legs stands alone. Pullman's work remains controversial to many simply because it is classified as a children's fantasy which presents an alternative and non-benign view of deity. However, seen from another perspective, it is not a very good target; not a children's fantasy, really a satire, and presenting a Victorian science-fictional view of human personality and intelligence. In that light, it is about as good as being atheist as Jules Verne or H G Wells, and maybe not even that good.
In closing, I would like to return to my earlier assumptions. Do you think that the movie actually promotes atheism as a philosophy more than theism? Do you think that by paying to watch the movie you will be promoting atheist causes financially more than other kinds of causes? I think modern life as a whole is more dangerous in such respects.
My personal stand on this has three legs; it is a Tripos if you like, of sorts.
Firstly, the converse of atheism is theism, not Christianity. The Bible says, "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.'" Hence, it clearly thinks of atheism as human foolishness. However, Christianity teaches that while all things (excepting those clearly labelled as evil) are lawful, not all things edify. It is thus left to the Christian's Spirit-informed conscience to decide, based on how much it offends others or acts as a stumbling-block to other Christians. The principle of charity must be observed; that is, to allow the widest latitude that is not immorality. Christians are also told to make it their ambition to lead a quiet life, to mind their own business, and to work with their hands, so that their daily lives will win the respect of others and that they will not be dependent on anybody else. The first leg of this argument therefore points to a fight over grey-area movies not being worth the Christian's time.
But is the His Dark Materials trilogy really in a grey area concerning the existence of God? Well, frankly, having read the series, I am not convinced it is meant to be some sort of anti-Lewisian tract. It is presented as fantasy, and despite involving gnostic ideas and such, it has nothing about it which denies the existence of God. Rather, it postulates a world in which the presence or absence of the vital spark can be measured quantitatively – hence, applied theology would be something like high-energy physics in our world. This is not a unique fantasy trope. Consider Frankenstein, for example. The use of this trope is in keeping with Pullman's preference for Victorian literary ideas. If anything, the world he describes is one in which a churchlike hierarchy conspires to hide the truth as they know it, and in which the apprehension of God is both easier and yet more confusing than it would seem to be in ours. It is a sort of agnostic theist perspective, I suppose. The second leg of this argument therefore points to the material as not being inherently atheist as compared to other SF or fantasy literature. (Actually, Agatha Christie detective novels are probably more atheist.)
Lastly, after reading Pullman's earlier children's novels and comparing them with His Dark Materials, I have begun to think that the latter constitutes Swiftean satire rather than true fantasy. The episodic nature of the text and the deliberate parodying of church, state, quantification of human traits, education and other societal structures lead me to believe that the books are misclassified as Children's Fantasy. Rather, like Rabelais's Gargantua & Pantagruel or the original Gulliver's Travels, they are not fantasy but social satire. And the nature of satire is to lead us to recognise the more unsavoury aspects of society, to mock them, and hopefully salvage the good that is left. The third leg of this argument therefore suggests that the material is not atheist in nature, but a satire on dogmatism in every area of human society.
None of these three legs stands alone. Pullman's work remains controversial to many simply because it is classified as a children's fantasy which presents an alternative and non-benign view of deity. However, seen from another perspective, it is not a very good target; not a children's fantasy, really a satire, and presenting a Victorian science-fictional view of human personality and intelligence. In that light, it is about as good as being atheist as Jules Verne or H G Wells, and maybe not even that good.
In closing, I would like to return to my earlier assumptions. Do you think that the movie actually promotes atheism as a philosophy more than theism? Do you think that by paying to watch the movie you will be promoting atheist causes financially more than other kinds of causes? I think modern life as a whole is more dangerous in such respects.
Labels: Literature, Movies, Philip Pullman, Religion, Satire
etched with acid at 8:22:00 am
3 Comments:
I think you mean'(Actually, Agatha Christie detective novels are probably more atheistIC.)'
anonymous: no, I said 'atheist' as in 'not admitting the existence of God'; as opposed to 'atheistic' – having a disposition, tendency or preference for such a stand.
So much here that is well said. Intelligent theism indeed!
I think Pullman is consciously writing an anti-fantasy.
The quantification point is fascinating, and I can see its application, but I'd also suggest that Pullman is not entirely (possibly even remotely) in charge of his thesis here. I think the story gets gloriously out of control, lending itself to a variety of readings, both theist & otherwise. One obvious mistake, which he's admitted to in interview, is depicting the forces of repression almost exclusively in western, Christian, terms. The bad guys look like the kinds of Christian brothers I encountered at school (and a nicer, more open-minded bunch of people would be difficult for me to imagine.) But, as he says, once you commit yourself to something on this scale there are going to be boo boos. The crucial thing is to read Pullman in a spirit of intelligent debate, as is so pointedly manifested in your findings.
Post a Comment
<< Home