So it seems that Philip Pullman’s The Golden Compass is causing quite a stir which has been roused further by the release of the major motion picture The Golden Compass.
The controversy surrounding the book lies in the interpretations of the books’ view on religion. One perspective says that the book has anti-religious themes. The opposite view states that the book is just a fantasy adventure, set in an alternative world where people’s souls manifest themselves as animals, talking bears fight wars, and Gyptians and witches coexist.
So is this just fantasy or is this anti-religious or is it both? Should this book be challenged in libraries and schools? Who should decide who should and shouldn’t read a book?
Didn’t read the book–I only saw the movie–but honestly, I don’t know if that story was religious, anti-religious, both, or neither. If there were anti-religion themes present in the film, then they went way over my head. I had to read about ten reviews of the film before I finally found one that could explain to me what “dust” was. It’s just sci-fi fantasy dressed up with vaguely religious-sounding terminology, but I wouldn’t say any of it meant anything beyond the context of the story.
I have yet to see the movie. I plan on seeing it so I can compare it to the book. I wonder if some of the major themes that were causing the controversy have been left out of the movie. I guess that would make sense in order to have a more broad appeal.
I enjoyed the book and would recommend it.
So honestly, I haven’t read the book or seen the movie, but I consider myself pretty open person to the ideas of others. I feel that the Golden Compass does have some anti-God ideas embedded within the story. In the book, correct me if I’m wrong, the main Characters kill God at the end of the series. I find this insulting to Christians. I’m sure that if any other non-Christian religious figure was mentioned as evil or controlling, the books and films would not have been as accepted in society.
Major Spoiler Alert for the Amber Spyglass (in response to the main characters “killing” God in the series):
The two main characters, Lyra and Will, happen upon the Authority, a being who falsely claims he created the universes and all in it. He is encased in a protective chamber because he is composed of Dust and is so old and frail that the wind will disperse him if he enters the solid world. Will and Lyra, seeing an unknown frail being, try to “free” him from his chamber and end up scattering him to the winds, to merge with the Dust in the worlds. They had no idea this was the Authority and only wanted to help him.
As much as this trilogy is based on Christian iconography and mythology, I think it ultimately moves beyond this into fantastical “what ifs” and Pullman’s own created mythology (much like the Lord of the Rings chronologies). The Authority could easily be considered a usurper of a True God (in keeping with Christian beliefs) in these alternate universes if one chose to read the books this way. It is true that Pullman relies heavily on Christian imagery and heirarchy and there are “angels” based on Biblical interpretations, but I think this book involves so many more mythologies (traveling to Charon, True Love) and creatures (daemons and the mulefa) that it can’t be read as simply a story meant to bash of Christianity. To do so would be to miss the point of a story that combines many Western myths into a single narrative about True Love and courage.
The movie, I think, does a very good job of replacing more Christian specific terms with general ones and it can as easily be interpreted a criticism of the ideals of Progress as a criticism of Christianity.
I haven’t read any of these books, but that was an eloquent response, Emily. I tend to wonder if these books would have inspired as much scrutiny were Philip Pullman not widely known for his atheism.
Actually, I’m not sure that Pullman truly is an atheist. Has he ever claimed that? Others have, but Wikipedia lists him as supporter of the British Humanist Association, and I’m not sure it’s fair to lump humanists and secularists in with atheists. Sure, if you drew up a Venn diagram, I would bet there’d be significant overlap, but I tend to think of humanism as more of a philosophical perspective whereas atheism is a religious perspective–or rather, an anti-religious one. Subtle distinction, and many might not agree, but there you go.
I guess I just can’t understand why a writer would have use christian terminology in a negative (such as “the Church” as being the controlling power in both the books and the movies) to tell a story about true love and freedom. I can’t see the point in doing that.
I also have not read the books or seen the movie but i have heard that it is anti-christian and the reasons why. I have a couple of questions and I would be very thankful if someone could answer them.
1. Is or isn’t the “bad guy” in the movie/book called the magisterium (The Magisterium, in the “real” world, is another name for the Roman Catholic Church)?
2. Does each character have their own “demon” who is supposed to be supposed to be their gardian
3. Did the writer of the book come out and say that he is an atheist and wrote the books in order to pry children away from God and Christianity?
4. Was it said that the anti-christian themes were down played in the movie so as to make the parents, who go to see the movie with their kids, think that it is a good story and then buy the kids the trilogy?
5. Did one of the advertisements for the movie contain a message from a Catholic bishop saying that the movie was a good thing and then they had to take the message off the advertisements because it was a false statement?
Thanks so much for you time.
I’m a poor participant in this conversation as I haven’t read the book, but speaking to question two, I can perhaps clarify somewhat. Pullman is almost certainly invoking the notion of a demon (or “daemon” as the Brits render it) in its classical sense, which is likely where you’ll find that he draws much of his thematic inspiration. The Encyclopedia Britannica may elucidate this distinction for you:
“in Greek religion, a supernatural power. In Homer the term is used almost interchangeably with theos for a god. The distinction there is that theos emphasizes the personality of the god, and demon his activity. Hence, the term demon was regularly applied to sudden or unexpected supernatural interventions not due to any particular deity. It became commonly the power determining a person’s fate, and a mortal could have a personal demon.”
Also useful is this bit from the Columbia Encyclopedia:
“In general, the more civilized pagan societies came to consider demons as powerful, supernatural beings who lacked the dignity of gods and who, depending on the circumstance, might be either benevolent or malevolent in their dealings with men. Some demons, like the Greek Pan, were nature spirits; others were guardians of the home or fields or watchers over travelers; still others were spirits of disease and insanity or dream spirits. Some demons were considered to be intermediaries between men and the gods. It was not until the development of late Hebraic and Christian thinking that demons came to represent the unqualified malevolence so common in European demonology of the 16th and 17th cent.”
Emphasis in that last sentence is mine.
Hi again. Since I’m apparently the only person who has read the books, I will try to answer some of Meg’s questions. I will remind everyone, though, that books (like art) are subject to interpretation. Several religious groups have chosen to interpret Pullman’s “His Dark Materials” trilogy as an attack on the Church. Other people do not interpret the trilogy this way. The best way to find out who you believe is to read the books for yourself and be your own judge.
But onto the questions:
1. Is or isn’t the “bad guy” in the movie/book called the magisterium (The Magisterium, in the “real” world, is another name for the Roman Catholic Church)?
There is no singular bad guy and, in fact, many of the characters make independent choices for their actions based on personal belief. Magisterium literally means: “office of superintendent/president/master/chief; instruction; control/governance” (it’s Latin). It refers not to the Catholic Church as a whole but to the teaching authority of the Church. Pullman uses this word to encompass the power structure seeking to destroy (or control) Dust and those who support it.
3. Did the writer of the book come out and say that he is an atheist and wrote the books in order to pry children away from God and Christianity?
I remember reading that quote in an article but I don’t quite know where that article is, why don’t you conduct a search for it? Here are two links to websites that feature his own words in response to questions about your subject.
http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/contentViewArticle.asp?article=2234
http://blog.beliefnet.com/idolchatter/2007/11/exclusive-video-philip-pulman.html
Remember: if you read something about another person that is tantalizing and possibly scandalous and you wonder about its truth, find out about it for yourself by looking up the resources reporters used in their essays.
4. Was it said that the anti-christian themes were down played in the movie so as to make the parents, who go to see the movie with their kids, think that it is a good story and then buy the kids the trilogy?
I never heard or read this sentiment, but I do know that the Church related themes were minimized and replaced with the more general term “Magisterium.” In the movie, the Magisterium refers to, I think, any authoritarian power that tries to dominate a country, culture, or group of individuals.
With regard to whether parents would buy the books for their kids after watching the movie–I think with all the press the movie received before it opened parents would have an idea of what to expect and what to expose their children to.
5. Did one of the advertisements for the movie contain a message from a Catholic bishop saying that the movie was a good thing and then they had to take the message off the advertisements because it was a false statement?
I don’t know anything about this one–I suggest you try to find this advertisement on the web. And! While Wikipedia isn’t necessarily a codified authority, it does provide reference links… check ‘em out:
Golden Compass (Film) at Wikipedia
[...] The Wanderer on the Web allows students to submit book reviews, poetry and other writing and artwork on the site. The site already includes several book reviews, a poem, and some thoughtful discussion on whether the movie and book the Golden Compass includes anti-religious themes. [...]
I might not be christian, but I guess Jews and christians are a lot alike. Even though I only read chapter 1 in the golden compass I think it’s fine. It is the same thing with Harry potter and I’ve read every book and watched every movie a ga-zillion times and it doesn’t have any thing against god in it. I don’t think books can do anything wrong in them. Nothing will ever make me think books go mean to god.