In my comparison/contrast I decided to discuss my two favorite authors of this semester Philip Pullman and J.R.R. Tolkien.
In comparison these two authors are amazing writers who put painstakingly long hours into their works and included so much detail and description, although Tolkien definitely holds the record for including the most. Both authors have the wonderful style of writing that draws the reader into the world (s) that they have created and allows the reader to become a part of the story imagining every detail that is described almost perfectly. And at any point in time when the reader is not being actively pulled into the story, the characters and story are being described in such a way that they almost become alive in the reader's world. While these authors come from two very different backgrounds, they have two very similar writing styles in that aspect.
The contrast occurs like I said in the fact that these two men come from two very different backgrounds which greatly influenced what their series were about. Tolkien came from a Christian background and those Christian beliefs can be seen through various allegories in his series such as the theme of good vs. evil, the battle between those forces, the temptations that Frodo faces, etc. Meanwhile, while Pullman's Christian influence when he was a child turned him against Christianity and led him to a strong Atheistic view as an adult. However his views that are conveyed in his series rely more on the fact that he believed that no religious or non-religious being or agency should hold a significant amount of power or dominance over other people. He had been forced as a child to attend church and follow those beliefs, thus the themes of free will and a dominant church come into his series as the main topics.
Both these authors used their backgrounds and styles of writing to develop wonderful works of literature and even though Pullman's still causes controversy today, they both can be held in high esteem in the relms of fantasy.
Showing posts with label Phillip Pullman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Phillip Pullman. Show all posts
Friday, December 18, 2009
Pullman Post
I have to say despite all the so-called religious controversy that Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials brings about, I love the series and his writing style.
Philip Pullman has an amazing way of writing for any age range and drawing that reader into the series so that they pick a favorite character and relate to that character throughout the entire story while still maintaining favor of many of the other characters. Yes, maybe he could have paced the second and third books in the series a little bit better but I found all of the series to be an enjoyable reading experience and it's even better to listen to on audio CD. His writing style not only draws you into the story but also makes the story and characters come alive.
The series itself has wonderful aspects. I find the controversy of religion to be one of the best things about the series. Not only was I able to write my final project off of that controversy, but I also greatly enjoyed debating with the class and myself over what the real meaning of Pullman's work is. Another aspect of the series that I loved was how the main character was a girl, most often the hero is a boy and this made the story a little bit more relateable, although I still like Urek and Lee Scoresby the best. Lastly, I found the plot and journey that takes place in the story so intriguing that it became more of a choice reading than an assigned reading because I found myself getting more and more drawn into the world Pullman had created.
Once again, this series was much better than the movie because of the amount of detail and description that was included.
Pullman's series was probably my most favorite series out of the entire semester.
Philip Pullman has an amazing way of writing for any age range and drawing that reader into the series so that they pick a favorite character and relate to that character throughout the entire story while still maintaining favor of many of the other characters. Yes, maybe he could have paced the second and third books in the series a little bit better but I found all of the series to be an enjoyable reading experience and it's even better to listen to on audio CD. His writing style not only draws you into the story but also makes the story and characters come alive.
The series itself has wonderful aspects. I find the controversy of religion to be one of the best things about the series. Not only was I able to write my final project off of that controversy, but I also greatly enjoyed debating with the class and myself over what the real meaning of Pullman's work is. Another aspect of the series that I loved was how the main character was a girl, most often the hero is a boy and this made the story a little bit more relateable, although I still like Urek and Lee Scoresby the best. Lastly, I found the plot and journey that takes place in the story so intriguing that it became more of a choice reading than an assigned reading because I found myself getting more and more drawn into the world Pullman had created.
Once again, this series was much better than the movie because of the amount of detail and description that was included.
Pullman's series was probably my most favorite series out of the entire semester.
Major Authors vs Major Texts
For my final project I focused on the religious controversies surrounding Pullman's His Dark Materials trilogy and the way in which those issues may fit into a long standing dialogue between radical fundamentalist Christian readers and the genre of fantasy fiction. I drew a lot from Roland Barthes' essay "The Death of the Author" to pose the argument that most of the controversies are the result of the projection of a real or perceived authorial identity, agenda or intent onto the text. The ultimate effect is the disenfranchisement of the reader and the reduction of a complex text to a singular meaning. I mostly focused on Pullman in my paper but I also brought in Tolkien briefly so I think that for a comparison of the authors in this course I can extend some of the concepts of my argument to each.
As far as Tolkien is concerned I focused primarily on how his identity as a Catholic author could cause readers to focus only on themes in the text that are consistent with Catholic ideology. To do so would be to ignore the ways that those issues are dealt with in a subtle and complex way and also to ignore the various other different kinds of ideology that may appear in the text inadvertently. One simple example is the destruction of the ring. While one interpretation could be that Frodo gives into temptation in the end because everyone is flawed and no one person could accomplish the task alone (which may be consistant with Christian or Catholic ideas). However, it is Gollum who ultimately destroys the ring, which could be read as the only way to finally defeat evil is to give into it fully and completely. I also think that Tolkien's elevation to the status of a major author or at least one of the most influential fantasy authors of all time colors the reader's perception of the text. As a reader you go into the text with the notion that it will be just about the greatest thing you've ever read because Tolkien has received so much praise and credit for his work, which may cause you to elevate the positive aspects of the text while ignoring its weaknesses.
For Pullman I obviously discussed the religious controversies surrounding the series and the projection of the atheist author identity on the text. In my research I found that a great number of conservative Christian readers centered their arguments about a supposed "atheist agenda" that Pullman had with the series. This criticism extended to and seemed in many cases to be inspired by the production of the film adaptation of the Golden Compass. I felt that the projection of this agenda essentially reduced the series to propaganda and ignored its positive elements as well as its complexities. In order to prove this I provided examples of liberal Christian reading which found evidence in the text that supports their worldview to some extent. I also provided my own interpretation of the text in which the death of the Authority is a parallel to the death of the Author and the result was the empowering of individuals in the text which represent the readers themselves. In this way I used Pullman's texts to show that there is a complex system of ideologies in every text and though Pullman may have indeed intended to subvert religion with the series, as a reader you could potentially use the text to subvert Pullman (as an author) himself.
Ok....Donaldson. I did not include a discussion of Donaldson in my paper and I can only hope that this is the last time that I have to think or talk about him. After this post I can just try to forget that my experience with his work ever happened. That being said I think that my argument does extend to his work to some degree, at least in the context of how our class read the texts. This is a major authors course so there was already a notion that the texts we read were the works of significant and competent author figures. More importantly though this is a major authors course that focuses on fantasy fiction. We read Tolkien first and used his work to develop a kind of idea of the things that major fantasy authors are supposed to do in their texts. Tolkien set the bar high and as a major fantasy author we expected a lot from Donaldson. As we all know, he didn't deliver. I think that it is also interesting to note that as the Donaldson unit went on we sort of developed our own authorial identity for Donaldson and may have projected that onto our readings of the texts. This is the identity of the incompetent author or the hack. Since it was generally established early on that Donaldson sucked, we may have read the text looking for the more negative aspects and ignoring anything that the text may or may not have been doing that was interesting or valuable.
I didn't really realize the irony of my project until writing this post. For a final paper in a major authors course I wrote about the death of the author and the ways in which the construction of the author concept is harmful. Perhaps it is a mistake to teach a major authors course as it inevitably restricts the abilities of the reader and colors interpretations of the texts. What makes an author a major author? Perhaps its irrelevant. Maybe instead we could require English majors to take a major texts class in which we all strive to become major readers.
As far as Tolkien is concerned I focused primarily on how his identity as a Catholic author could cause readers to focus only on themes in the text that are consistent with Catholic ideology. To do so would be to ignore the ways that those issues are dealt with in a subtle and complex way and also to ignore the various other different kinds of ideology that may appear in the text inadvertently. One simple example is the destruction of the ring. While one interpretation could be that Frodo gives into temptation in the end because everyone is flawed and no one person could accomplish the task alone (which may be consistant with Christian or Catholic ideas). However, it is Gollum who ultimately destroys the ring, which could be read as the only way to finally defeat evil is to give into it fully and completely. I also think that Tolkien's elevation to the status of a major author or at least one of the most influential fantasy authors of all time colors the reader's perception of the text. As a reader you go into the text with the notion that it will be just about the greatest thing you've ever read because Tolkien has received so much praise and credit for his work, which may cause you to elevate the positive aspects of the text while ignoring its weaknesses.
For Pullman I obviously discussed the religious controversies surrounding the series and the projection of the atheist author identity on the text. In my research I found that a great number of conservative Christian readers centered their arguments about a supposed "atheist agenda" that Pullman had with the series. This criticism extended to and seemed in many cases to be inspired by the production of the film adaptation of the Golden Compass. I felt that the projection of this agenda essentially reduced the series to propaganda and ignored its positive elements as well as its complexities. In order to prove this I provided examples of liberal Christian reading which found evidence in the text that supports their worldview to some extent. I also provided my own interpretation of the text in which the death of the Authority is a parallel to the death of the Author and the result was the empowering of individuals in the text which represent the readers themselves. In this way I used Pullman's texts to show that there is a complex system of ideologies in every text and though Pullman may have indeed intended to subvert religion with the series, as a reader you could potentially use the text to subvert Pullman (as an author) himself.
Ok....Donaldson. I did not include a discussion of Donaldson in my paper and I can only hope that this is the last time that I have to think or talk about him. After this post I can just try to forget that my experience with his work ever happened. That being said I think that my argument does extend to his work to some degree, at least in the context of how our class read the texts. This is a major authors course so there was already a notion that the texts we read were the works of significant and competent author figures. More importantly though this is a major authors course that focuses on fantasy fiction. We read Tolkien first and used his work to develop a kind of idea of the things that major fantasy authors are supposed to do in their texts. Tolkien set the bar high and as a major fantasy author we expected a lot from Donaldson. As we all know, he didn't deliver. I think that it is also interesting to note that as the Donaldson unit went on we sort of developed our own authorial identity for Donaldson and may have projected that onto our readings of the texts. This is the identity of the incompetent author or the hack. Since it was generally established early on that Donaldson sucked, we may have read the text looking for the more negative aspects and ignoring anything that the text may or may not have been doing that was interesting or valuable.
I didn't really realize the irony of my project until writing this post. For a final paper in a major authors course I wrote about the death of the author and the ways in which the construction of the author concept is harmful. Perhaps it is a mistake to teach a major authors course as it inevitably restricts the abilities of the reader and colors interpretations of the texts. What makes an author a major author? Perhaps its irrelevant. Maybe instead we could require English majors to take a major texts class in which we all strive to become major readers.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
On Magic
At the beginning of the semester, the Major Authors course studying Tolkien, Donaldson, and Pullman did a little survey in which we asked each other, “What makes a fantasy book?” Many people talked about different races, such as elves and orcs; fantastic creatures, like dragons and wargs; or a group (or fellowship) trying to save the world. One thing that everybody agreed on was that a fantasy book or series has got to have magic. What is interesting is how the three series we have read each have a different outlook on magic.
The Thomas Covenant series mostly takes place in a world that is “leaking” magic. The society was once chest deep in magic, or “lore.” When the main chunk of the story takes place, people have mostly forgotten or lost their magical abilities. Thomas Covenant, who is supposed to be the bearer of a magical ring, doesn’t even know how to use it for most of the series. This trilogy sees magic as being an ancient, mystical, and deadly force that only a handful of people are able to wield.
In His Dark Materials, magic is a religious phenomenon. Almost everything that happens that is “magical” is explained using Dust. A person’s daemon, which we would consider to be some sort of magic (a shape-shifting pet) is actually an outer reflection of the person’s identity and/or soul. But the people in this world also are in awe of the witches, which they regard as magical because of their ability to fly and perform spells, though one which, Serafina Pekkala, explains that her invisibility spell is little more than a psychological trick.
I think one of the coolest outlooks on magic comes from The Lord of the Rings. The Hobbits and Men can’t wield magic, but Elves and the wizards can. These wizards are like the traditional wizards most people are familiar with: They have flashy magic, beards, robes, staves, etc. The Elves, however, are completely different. The Elves have magic so ingrained in their lives that they hardly even acknowledge it’s existence. The Elves have rope, but to other races, it’s magical rope that never breaks, is extremely fine, and can burn the skin of servants of the Enemy (Sauron). The only reason the places the Elves live are beautiful is because of their magic and the magic of the rings they acquired, but they pay no mind to it. When the Fellowship passes through Galadriel’s forested nation, they are in awe of it’s beauty and splendor, and it seems like the Elves take it for granted. I’m not saying this is necessarily bad, but I think it’s cool how it’s just no big deal to them, and it’s so deep in their bones and society that they don’t need all the flash and bang lightshow like the characters in, say, Harry Potter.
These three series represent only a few magical points of view that fantasy writers use. Some are more traditional, like these series tend to be; some, like The Dresden Files by Jim Butcher, but magic in a modern setting. I’d like to think that our class was right about magic being a key part of all fantasy books. Whether magic lies in a ring, a wand, or in blood, wherever you find fantasy, magic will surely follow.
The Thomas Covenant series mostly takes place in a world that is “leaking” magic. The society was once chest deep in magic, or “lore.” When the main chunk of the story takes place, people have mostly forgotten or lost their magical abilities. Thomas Covenant, who is supposed to be the bearer of a magical ring, doesn’t even know how to use it for most of the series. This trilogy sees magic as being an ancient, mystical, and deadly force that only a handful of people are able to wield.
In His Dark Materials, magic is a religious phenomenon. Almost everything that happens that is “magical” is explained using Dust. A person’s daemon, which we would consider to be some sort of magic (a shape-shifting pet) is actually an outer reflection of the person’s identity and/or soul. But the people in this world also are in awe of the witches, which they regard as magical because of their ability to fly and perform spells, though one which, Serafina Pekkala, explains that her invisibility spell is little more than a psychological trick.
I think one of the coolest outlooks on magic comes from The Lord of the Rings. The Hobbits and Men can’t wield magic, but Elves and the wizards can. These wizards are like the traditional wizards most people are familiar with: They have flashy magic, beards, robes, staves, etc. The Elves, however, are completely different. The Elves have magic so ingrained in their lives that they hardly even acknowledge it’s existence. The Elves have rope, but to other races, it’s magical rope that never breaks, is extremely fine, and can burn the skin of servants of the Enemy (Sauron). The only reason the places the Elves live are beautiful is because of their magic and the magic of the rings they acquired, but they pay no mind to it. When the Fellowship passes through Galadriel’s forested nation, they are in awe of it’s beauty and splendor, and it seems like the Elves take it for granted. I’m not saying this is necessarily bad, but I think it’s cool how it’s just no big deal to them, and it’s so deep in their bones and society that they don’t need all the flash and bang lightshow like the characters in, say, Harry Potter.
These three series represent only a few magical points of view that fantasy writers use. Some are more traditional, like these series tend to be; some, like The Dresden Files by Jim Butcher, but magic in a modern setting. I’d like to think that our class was right about magic being a key part of all fantasy books. Whether magic lies in a ring, a wand, or in blood, wherever you find fantasy, magic will surely follow.
Monday, December 14, 2009
St. Peter = The Authority?
I feel that Pullman offers a fantasy series that might not be all that far out there when it comes to his portrayal of the church.
I would be considered Agnostic even though I don’t like subscribing to a theological identity. I was a history major and this made me hate religion. I have studied and saw all the ridiculous things that the church has perpetrated through its varied incarnations.
The big thing that springs into my mind is how the creation story compares with that of the creation of the Christianity in our world.
In the His Dark Materials Trilogy, Pullman sets up his multi-verse with the Authority, who is not the creator, as the head of everything. Everyone thinks he is the creator but we find out that he is not. I see a huge parallel between this and evidence that surfaced over the past one hundred years with the Dead Sea Scrolls.
The Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in caves in the Middle East. In these scrolls were documents hidden from those who would have destroyed them. One of the most interesting is the Gospel of Mary Magdalene. I have read a book that has a photocopy of it along with a translation that would suggest that Mary was Jesus’ most trusted and revered apostle. The apostle to the apostles.
Now you’re probably thinking, “Well if that is true then why did Peter start the church?” Good point. Tradition tells us that Peter was the rock that the church was founded on and is waiting at the gates of heaven to let those worthy in.
I think that is a load of crap.
In the Gospel of Thomas, another document contained in the Dead Sea Scrolls, talks of Peter being jealous of Mary Magdalene and that Peter was a sexist, which in some ways makes a lot of sense when looking at how the church has treated women.
These gospels also talk of how Jesus asked Mary to start the church.
So after followers of Jesus fled to the west in fear of persecution from Romans and Jews, Peter stepped in and said that Jesus asked him to start the church that single handedly killed millions upon millions of people, directly and indirectly. Through war, greed, fear, witch hunts, and slavery. Much like the church in Lyra’s world, just a little more exaggerated.
Peter can be the Authority who sent history in a very different direction and caused a little under two millennia of death, fear, and greed.
Thanks Pullman!
I would be considered Agnostic even though I don’t like subscribing to a theological identity. I was a history major and this made me hate religion. I have studied and saw all the ridiculous things that the church has perpetrated through its varied incarnations.
The big thing that springs into my mind is how the creation story compares with that of the creation of the Christianity in our world.
In the His Dark Materials Trilogy, Pullman sets up his multi-verse with the Authority, who is not the creator, as the head of everything. Everyone thinks he is the creator but we find out that he is not. I see a huge parallel between this and evidence that surfaced over the past one hundred years with the Dead Sea Scrolls.
The Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in caves in the Middle East. In these scrolls were documents hidden from those who would have destroyed them. One of the most interesting is the Gospel of Mary Magdalene. I have read a book that has a photocopy of it along with a translation that would suggest that Mary was Jesus’ most trusted and revered apostle. The apostle to the apostles.
Now you’re probably thinking, “Well if that is true then why did Peter start the church?” Good point. Tradition tells us that Peter was the rock that the church was founded on and is waiting at the gates of heaven to let those worthy in.
I think that is a load of crap.
In the Gospel of Thomas, another document contained in the Dead Sea Scrolls, talks of Peter being jealous of Mary Magdalene and that Peter was a sexist, which in some ways makes a lot of sense when looking at how the church has treated women.
These gospels also talk of how Jesus asked Mary to start the church.
So after followers of Jesus fled to the west in fear of persecution from Romans and Jews, Peter stepped in and said that Jesus asked him to start the church that single handedly killed millions upon millions of people, directly and indirectly. Through war, greed, fear, witch hunts, and slavery. Much like the church in Lyra’s world, just a little more exaggerated.
Peter can be the Authority who sent history in a very different direction and caused a little under two millennia of death, fear, and greed.
Thanks Pullman!
Monday, December 7, 2009
Parenting and His Dark Materials
Since discussion during my group's went a little longer I was unable to really say much of my points on the theme of parenting in His Dark Materials, so I'm going to do so in this blog.
I'd like to start this blog out with a quote from Navigating the Golden Compass: religion, science and damonology in His Dark Materials by Glenn Yeffeth, which is the same quote I started out with in class.
"The construction of Lord Asriel and Mrs. Coulter subverts the ideology of the benevolent parent common to the children's fantasy tradition and at the same time embodies His Dark Materials' key arguments: that adults are not perfect, that there is no reason to believe that they will always act more correctly or make better choices than children will, and that therefore the adult social hegemony can be a dangerously unfair structure."
This quote pretty much sums up the parental theme of Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials trilogy. The two parents of Lyra are not perfect, and in fact are probably the most flawed characters of the trilogy.
The theme of parenting in the trilogy seems to be prevalent throughout. Lyra and Will both have parental issues that keep them going and also hinder their progress.
Starting with Lyra:
She begins the tale seemingly without parents. The college scholars take care of her but do not guide her like a parent would. Mrs. Coulter and Lord Asriel both show very little care for her.
Mrs. Coulter is the evil figure throughout the first 2/3 of the trilogy and Lyra wants nothing to do with her after finding out who she truly is. In the second book we see more of her as a strictly evil character pursuing Lyra with almost a hatred for the girl. We only see her love and devotion to the girl in The Amber Spyglass as she takes care of Lyra in the cave.
Lord Asirel starts off as a strong parental figure but quickly becomes another villain to Lyra after killing Roger. At the beginning of the third book he tells Mrs. Coulter that he doesn't care for Lyra at all. In the end we see them both sacrafice themselves not only for victory but to save Lyra from death.
They both have significant roles in her journey. They are both the reason why Lyra started on her journey and ended up where she did in the end. Her detest for them made her a stronger character.
Moving on to Will:
Will has learned to grow up fast and become a leader because of his sick mother and the lack of a father figure. He is a natural caretaker, which we see during his journey with Lyra and as he defends his mother against the men.
His father left Will when he was very young, much like Lyra's parents did to her. The absense of a parental figure in Will's life has made him a strong person both emotionally and physically. We see his strong emotional side when he thinks of his mother and breaks the subtle knife. He also brings this out during the end of the Amber Spyglass with his confession of love toward Lyra.
The parental theme seems to be a moving force for Will as it is for Lyra. He discovers another world because he killed a man to protect his mother and goes on his journey to find his father. He then continues his journey because of his father's words before being killed.
As the quote said, parents are not perfect and His Dark Materials shows that point to the extreme.
I'd like to start this blog out with a quote from Navigating the Golden Compass: religion, science and damonology in His Dark Materials by Glenn Yeffeth, which is the same quote I started out with in class.
"The construction of Lord Asriel and Mrs. Coulter subverts the ideology of the benevolent parent common to the children's fantasy tradition and at the same time embodies His Dark Materials' key arguments: that adults are not perfect, that there is no reason to believe that they will always act more correctly or make better choices than children will, and that therefore the adult social hegemony can be a dangerously unfair structure."
This quote pretty much sums up the parental theme of Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials trilogy. The two parents of Lyra are not perfect, and in fact are probably the most flawed characters of the trilogy.
The theme of parenting in the trilogy seems to be prevalent throughout. Lyra and Will both have parental issues that keep them going and also hinder their progress.
Starting with Lyra:
She begins the tale seemingly without parents. The college scholars take care of her but do not guide her like a parent would. Mrs. Coulter and Lord Asriel both show very little care for her.
Mrs. Coulter is the evil figure throughout the first 2/3 of the trilogy and Lyra wants nothing to do with her after finding out who she truly is. In the second book we see more of her as a strictly evil character pursuing Lyra with almost a hatred for the girl. We only see her love and devotion to the girl in The Amber Spyglass as she takes care of Lyra in the cave.
Lord Asirel starts off as a strong parental figure but quickly becomes another villain to Lyra after killing Roger. At the beginning of the third book he tells Mrs. Coulter that he doesn't care for Lyra at all. In the end we see them both sacrafice themselves not only for victory but to save Lyra from death.
They both have significant roles in her journey. They are both the reason why Lyra started on her journey and ended up where she did in the end. Her detest for them made her a stronger character.
Moving on to Will:
Will has learned to grow up fast and become a leader because of his sick mother and the lack of a father figure. He is a natural caretaker, which we see during his journey with Lyra and as he defends his mother against the men.
His father left Will when he was very young, much like Lyra's parents did to her. The absense of a parental figure in Will's life has made him a strong person both emotionally and physically. We see his strong emotional side when he thinks of his mother and breaks the subtle knife. He also brings this out during the end of the Amber Spyglass with his confession of love toward Lyra.
The parental theme seems to be a moving force for Will as it is for Lyra. He discovers another world because he killed a man to protect his mother and goes on his journey to find his father. He then continues his journey because of his father's words before being killed.
As the quote said, parents are not perfect and His Dark Materials shows that point to the extreme.
Sunday, December 6, 2009
His Dark Materials Shines a New Light on Things
Growing up Christian and being sent to church and Sunday school every Sunday because it made the grandparents happy left me with a little resentment towards organized religion. I was baptized when I was baby and do not remember it, however when it came time for me to be confirmed and admit my life to one God and one religion, I really had to think about this. I was about to sign my life away to a belief that has yet to be proven or even fully answered. I was faced with a choice that I had to make, one that I could not make lightly either. I had lots of questions that needed answering before I could accept that this was the right thing to do. I never became confirmed because I was never answered with any response that I felt was a legitimate reason for things or for belief, if there was no answer this was the response I received “that is why they call it faith, you don’t question it, you just believe.”
I feel that Pullman, like myself, did not feel that this sort of response was a legitimate response to the questions that arise within organized religions such as the Christian faith. Perhaps the church is right and there is a God, perhaps he is a loving and virtuous God who has sacrificed the ultimate gift so that you and I will have a place in Heaven, or maybe he is that wrathful and full of vengeance as he is portrayed in the Old Testament. Perhaps the latter is true and the question that Pullman asks of whether we have been lied to since the dawn of man.
Perhaps there was extraordinary cataclysmic battle between good and evil at the beginning of the world, but who is to say that right a good side won. I once heard a quote from a history teacher that I had in High School: “History is written by the winner, not the loser.” Although I did not really think about it at the time, but this quote is true. Think about how the idea of Thanksgiving is taught in our schools; as happy time where we think about how our friends the “Indians” taught us about what friendship was and kindness, not even close. Now let’s look at what really happened; we came, we took, we raped, we murdered, we slaughtered, we purposefully infected, we relocated, and now we break treaties and try to implement taxes on these people. 
This misconstrued idea of history has been fed to us since day one because that is how it was recorded. Perhaps that is the same with the Christian religion. Maybe Pullman had thought the same thing and decided to express this idea that maybe God was the really the evil one and that Satan was the good one but he lost and so therefore history was misconstrued and recorded as a lie. I do not think that Pullman is necessarily bashing the Christian faith, but instead presenting a piece of fiction that brings to light new ideas about an ancient history. Maybe the real important thing is to make decisions for ourselves and not blindly following like a sheep.
The Child, Morality, and HDM
Morality and the justification for character's actions is something that most creative writing students learn within the first week of the introduction class. Every action the character has must be believable in the grand scheme of things. Whether the story is fantasy, science fiction, realism, magical realism, whatever the genre, the decisions the character makes must be justifiable in order for the piece to be believable. This is where the author really shines. He/she can write the story in such a way that those actions are not only justified but are within the character's characteristics.With children as main characters, the problem becomes complicated. Most of the time children haven't reached the point where they are able to see even the most basic consequences behind their actions, let alone those that are polysemous in nature. This applies not just to the main characters but to the readers who are most likely children readers, drawn to characters most like them. So a decision to steal food, for example, is seen as wrong but justified as being necessary for the survival of the character. Both the reader, who is of the same developmental mindset as the main character, and the child character are subject to the authors views on morality, which even in the most lay adults are much more highly developed than an adolescents'. Thus when the character and the adolescent reader encounters the consequences of the characters mistakes they learn his/her lesson and gain a sense of right and wrong.
Yet what happens when those consequences are not fully present? What happens if the consequences never catch up to the character? A sense of morality is never established in the character and a wrong sense of morality is instilled in the reader, believing that these actions have no consequences. Thus we arrive at Phillip Pullman's His Dark Materials trilogy. As much ridicule this series has been subject to, very rarely do we see any directed toward morality. Many believe that Lyra learns from her moral misgivings, and yes we see Lyra encounter the consequences of her lies toward the middle of The Amber Spyglass, a full 600 pages after her first lie.
For all of The Golden Compass and The Subtle Knife the reader watches Lyra weasel her way out of consequences and walk away none the wiser. She learns how to nurture through Will's missing fingers, how to be a "proper lady" through Coulter, and is told the direction to fulfill her quest through the Golden Compass. She literally grows up in front of our eyes throughout the series without even knowing that her lying, stealing, and hiding are not the right things to do. Yes she has moments of clarity, and boy do they last a long time (about 100 pages through Subtle Knife she is a submissive, comment-less blob with a compass), and yes she does hold the ultimate "truth teller" in her hands that gives her a sense of right and wrong. But these moments are rather lame and few. For all the fantastic writing of Pullman, I believe he guides and establishes reader's, especially those of adolescent mindset, into morally grey if not black territory.
While I could carry on with this post for another three or four days, here is where I will stop and submit to you to email me if you want to see my finished thought…
Friday, November 27, 2009
Things I generally hated about the Golden Compass movie
After reading The Golden Compass by Phillip Pullman I decided to check out the movie version despite numerous warnings from other people who had also read the book. I really liked the story and since reading and re-watching the Lord of the Rings trilogy I have learned to be a little bit easier on film adaptations. I thought that I would check it out for myself. The result was a rekindled hatred in film adaptations of books. There were so many things that I hated about this movie but before I get into those I would like to point out that the film did have two redeeming qualities; Sam Elliot as Lee Scoresby and Ian McKellen as the voice of Iorek Byrnison. That being said, two well casted roles were not enough for me to like this movie.
Let's start from the beginning. The movie opens with the voice of a narrator, I am assuming Lyra's voice, that blatantly explains that there are multiple worlds and that in "her" world people's souls reside outside their bodies in the form of daemons. As soon as this voice began to speak I should have realized how bad the film was going to be but for some reason I kept watching. I don't like this narrative voice for a couple reasons. For one, the beginning is the ONLY time that it appears in the film. I think that is just seems kind of lazy or sloppy or both. If you are going to set up a film in the context of a narrative the narrative voice should probably be consistent throughout the movie. Otherwise you don't get a sense of who the narrator is and why they are speaking or telling the story. Essentially the voice becomes a tool to throw some information at the viewer. That is really what it felt like. In Pullman's novel he begins with the story in progress and allows the reader to make inferences about the world that he sets up through sensory details, interaction between characters and interesting scenes that develop the plot as well as the world. In the film it felt as if they were shoving Pullman's world down our throats both with this opening narrative voice and awkward expository dialogue throughout.
On that note I also feel that many of the transitions and major changes throughout the film seemed incredibly forced. I'm thinking of when Serafina Pekkala literally drops in from out of nowhere and decides to introduce herself to Lyra for no apparent reason. Also the scene where Lyra and Iorek go off to find the severed child then the gyptians storm in and a battle erupts. It was like they just mashed together a bunch of parts from the book without really thinking about it too much. I just kept wondering where the Gyptians came from and how they got there so fast. Quite possibly the worst transition in this movie and probably the worst transition I have seen in ANY movie was the shift from Svalbard to Bolvangar. After the battle is over Iorek just says, "And now, I will take you to Bolvangar" and immediately there is a cut to her riding him across a snow covered field. I actually had to rewind that part and watch it again because it was so unbelievably bad. In general all of these forced transitions and moments in the film made me feel as if I were being beaten over the head with the plot of Pullman's novel.
There is also the matter of one of the most fundamental changes to the plot in the film adaptation. They completely switched the events of Svalbard and Bolvangar for the sole purpose of hyping up the battle scene at the end. I felt that this switch really took away from the complexity of the events at Svalbard. In the film we didn't get any sense that Iofur Raknison (renamed Lord Rakna in the film, presumably because it sounds cooler) is trying to go against his bear nature and act more human. Moreover, we don't see that the struggle between Iorek and Iofur is really about the conflict between two ideologies that will ultimately determine the fate of the bear race. They might as well have cut the entire sequence from the movie altogether. I also found the actual battle scene between the bears pretty tame and disappointing. When Iorek knocks off the other bear's jaw I was really hoping to see his tongue flop out like it describes in the book...then Iorek doesn't even eat his heart! It seems like they tried to downplay some of the more gruesome elements of the story in an effort to make the movie appeal to a younger audience. I found this disappointing because one of the things I liked about Pullman was that he did not seem to censor or restrict himself despite the fact that he wrote for a younger audience.
Related to the issues of censorship and restriction is the ending of the movie...Lyra and Roger fly off into the sunset in Scoresby's balloon. Credits. It seems like in an effort to make the end more appealing to younger audiences they really limited the possibility of a sequel. So how does the Subtle Knife movie start? They land the balloon, Lord Asriel brutally murders Roger in an effort to tear open the fabric of reality and thousands of kids expecting another delightful romp featuring talking bears run from the movie theater screaming and crying. I don't see it happening. If they are going adapt the whole trilogy it seems like it would almost make more sense to start again by remaking The Golden Compass with the whole project in mind. I can only hope that happens because the movie version I saw butchered a story that I really liked. It would be nice to see a version come out that actually does it justice.
Let's start from the beginning. The movie opens with the voice of a narrator, I am assuming Lyra's voice, that blatantly explains that there are multiple worlds and that in "her" world people's souls reside outside their bodies in the form of daemons. As soon as this voice began to speak I should have realized how bad the film was going to be but for some reason I kept watching. I don't like this narrative voice for a couple reasons. For one, the beginning is the ONLY time that it appears in the film. I think that is just seems kind of lazy or sloppy or both. If you are going to set up a film in the context of a narrative the narrative voice should probably be consistent throughout the movie. Otherwise you don't get a sense of who the narrator is and why they are speaking or telling the story. Essentially the voice becomes a tool to throw some information at the viewer. That is really what it felt like. In Pullman's novel he begins with the story in progress and allows the reader to make inferences about the world that he sets up through sensory details, interaction between characters and interesting scenes that develop the plot as well as the world. In the film it felt as if they were shoving Pullman's world down our throats both with this opening narrative voice and awkward expository dialogue throughout.
On that note I also feel that many of the transitions and major changes throughout the film seemed incredibly forced. I'm thinking of when Serafina Pekkala literally drops in from out of nowhere and decides to introduce herself to Lyra for no apparent reason. Also the scene where Lyra and Iorek go off to find the severed child then the gyptians storm in and a battle erupts. It was like they just mashed together a bunch of parts from the book without really thinking about it too much. I just kept wondering where the Gyptians came from and how they got there so fast. Quite possibly the worst transition in this movie and probably the worst transition I have seen in ANY movie was the shift from Svalbard to Bolvangar. After the battle is over Iorek just says, "And now, I will take you to Bolvangar" and immediately there is a cut to her riding him across a snow covered field. I actually had to rewind that part and watch it again because it was so unbelievably bad. In general all of these forced transitions and moments in the film made me feel as if I were being beaten over the head with the plot of Pullman's novel.
There is also the matter of one of the most fundamental changes to the plot in the film adaptation. They completely switched the events of Svalbard and Bolvangar for the sole purpose of hyping up the battle scene at the end. I felt that this switch really took away from the complexity of the events at Svalbard. In the film we didn't get any sense that Iofur Raknison (renamed Lord Rakna in the film, presumably because it sounds cooler) is trying to go against his bear nature and act more human. Moreover, we don't see that the struggle between Iorek and Iofur is really about the conflict between two ideologies that will ultimately determine the fate of the bear race. They might as well have cut the entire sequence from the movie altogether. I also found the actual battle scene between the bears pretty tame and disappointing. When Iorek knocks off the other bear's jaw I was really hoping to see his tongue flop out like it describes in the book...then Iorek doesn't even eat his heart! It seems like they tried to downplay some of the more gruesome elements of the story in an effort to make the movie appeal to a younger audience. I found this disappointing because one of the things I liked about Pullman was that he did not seem to censor or restrict himself despite the fact that he wrote for a younger audience.
Related to the issues of censorship and restriction is the ending of the movie...Lyra and Roger fly off into the sunset in Scoresby's balloon. Credits. It seems like in an effort to make the end more appealing to younger audiences they really limited the possibility of a sequel. So how does the Subtle Knife movie start? They land the balloon, Lord Asriel brutally murders Roger in an effort to tear open the fabric of reality and thousands of kids expecting another delightful romp featuring talking bears run from the movie theater screaming and crying. I don't see it happening. If they are going adapt the whole trilogy it seems like it would almost make more sense to start again by remaking The Golden Compass with the whole project in mind. I can only hope that happens because the movie version I saw butchered a story that I really liked. It would be nice to see a version come out that actually does it justice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)