I only heard about the series for the first time from my sister last night. I am interested in hearing some of the thoughts of Hatrack, rather than going to read the reviews of anonymous people I know nothing about.
I am intrigued, but not sure if I want to read it. I understand it is very contraversial, but also amazingly well written and engaging, and seems to present a view of morality that runs opposite to the morality I personally believe in. Kind-of an anti-beverly-morality, if you will. (So if I read it, will the books and I both explode into oblivion?)
[ August 18, 2004, 05:03 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It's a well-written and imaginative series with a seriously and deliberately blasphemous premise -- which shouldn't bother you unless you make the mistake of assuming that the universe in which this book occurs is ruled by the same God as ours.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Gotcha
I know the series really bothered my sister (though she couldn't put it down either), and I am trying to decide if I would feel the same way or if I would enjoy it.
Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
It bothered me a lot. The religious aspects, the choices that were made, the ending, all bugged me. I'm always amazed that people love the series. I think I read that author's previous books and just found them a bit boring.
Oh, and isn't that series read by a lot of kids? I didn't like that aspect either.
I NEVER dislike a fiction book based on its religious concepts. That usually doesn't bother me at all. This was a first for me.
[ August 18, 2004, 06:04 PM: Message edited by: Theca ]
Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
It is pretty heretical, though the heresy isn't very pronounced until the 3rd book... it's not written from an atheist point of view -- there ARE spiritual beings in the universe -- but it's a very heretical view of what those spiritual beings are... and it's a very anarchist view of the church (i.e., just about all church figures are shown to be corrupt and their beliefs invalid).
I've heard that the books have been optioned as movies, which I find hard to believe. If they're true to the books, I think a lot of movie theatres will get burned down.
The 3rd book is the weakest -- too wordy, yet also too rushed. He should've written an extra book.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
One thing my sister told me about was the girl main character asking her oracle thingy if she could trust the boy she is hanging out with. It says, "He is a murderer" and her response to this is "Oh good, I can trust him then."
HOW MESSED IS THAT?
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
I agree with Tom.
And would add:
I thought the way that Pullman ended the series was more amusing than blasphemous (hilariously New Agey to put it one way). But then again, I'm a Mormon so I'm on the sidelines of his little skirmish with Christianity (specifically Catholicism -- or at least that's the way I read it).
It's a pity. The world(s) and characters he created are wonderful. But in the end, it's kind of like how some people feel about OSC and his thing with psychology, etc.
Still. I'd say the books are worth reading.
Posted by Insanity Plea (Member # 2053) on :
It's really sad. Very beautifully written, but sad, I sobbed through the night the first time I finished it...but then I read it again...and again... Satyagraha
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I found the first book to be a work of absolute genius. Brilliant writing, including subtle, well worked exposition, intriguing ideas, involving characters that I really fell in love with; basically, everything I look for in a novel. The second book struck me as being of much lower quality, and served primarily as a bridge linking the first and third books, getting some necessary stuff out of the way. The third book was better than the second, but not nearly as good as the first. Definitely worth reading though. I'd recommend the series, taking into mind what Tom has already said. The author does seem to have a chip on his shoulder about Catholicism that is approximately the size of Rhode Island. That's small for a state, but as shoulder chips go, it's pretty freaking huge.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
I need to read the third one again. I'm intimately familiar with the first two, and thought they were really good when I was *thinks hard*...fifteen (the target audience, I suppose. Heck, I was a burned-out Goblet of Fire reader when it came out).
I thought the idea was pretty good, but it was pretty obvious that this guy had beef with organized religion. I just separated my own beliefs from his and read it simply for the story. I survived it relatively unscathed .
Read the Sally Lockhart series. I still pull those out. The Ruby in the Smoke is first.
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
I really liked the Dark Materials book, in particular the first one. I have to agree with the muppet...in fact, I will go further and say I love the Sally Lockhart books more than the Dark Materials books. There is no fantasy elements to it but it plays up a nifty view of Victorian London and tells fun pot-boiler mysteries to boot. Also can be very sad with a real heavy edge to it at times.
On the "Pullman obviously has a beef with the church" bit...why do people assume he does? If someone writes a book with a lead character who is a revenge killer out to avenge the death of his family by killing more and more...does that mean the author condones killing? Or revenge? Are these the same people that assume that because Rowling writes books about magic then she MUST believe in witchcraft?? Yeesh. Just because it is critical of religion doesn't mean it is an absolute treatise on his beliefs. Sheesh. Who on here ISN'T critical of other religions? I mean, being a ferverent believer in one particular religion usually means some problem with other religions. At the very least, there is a whole "roll eyes" sort of feeling that all other religions have it wrong and only YOURS is the true one all the way up to god on god violence like we have had throughout history.
That said, dang I liked the Dark Material's view on technology...he hates electricity!!
fil
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
I read an interview once... maybe I can find it somewheres...
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I guess it's kinda like reading Heinlien and believing that he is anti-traditional-family. Is he really? Well, I don't know, but I assume that he probably is because of the way he writes about it. Now, I haven't read these books (yet) so I have no clue if it is similar.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I haven't read them recently (I read them maybe three years ago) but I own them. I completely missed the blasphemy. Maybe it went right over the top of my head, maybe I don't know enough about Christianity (it is Christianity that has the problem with these books, right?) to understand why it is blasphemous.
I feel stupid now!
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Just read it. Even if you disagree with it completely it's worth reading because of the powerful themes of it, the beautiful writing and images and the SHEER IMAGINATIVENESS OF IT. Plus it's not nearly as disturbing as the Fire Us series which is just EXCELLENT. Read it and keep reading it. The first one is one of those books that makes me scream when it ends.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I haven't read them at all, but my understanding is that it paints God as the ulitimate evil and Satan as the noble hero. That is pretty blasphemous to Christianity.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Scream because you need to read the next book right away?
Note to self: Have all three books available if reading series
Edit: I did a brief search for references to this series on Hatrack, and noticed that you have a lot of admiration and respect for these books. I would love to hear more of your thoughts on them. You have to understand, these books *really* disturbed my sister. In light of that, I intend to find out more before making a decision.
[ August 18, 2004, 08:12 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I agree with Tom and Noemon. The first book was delightful. The second and third were not. The theology is fairly Gnostic, which is certainly heretical to orthodox theology, but as long as you’re reading the books as fiction, and not taking place in our universe, no problem. The thing that puzzles me is the people I know who consider them Christian allegory along the lines of CS Lewis. Those people, I think, either don’t know much about Christianity, or have very poor reading comprehension.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*grin* I'm trying to imagine people taking the stories as Christian allegory. It's downright funny.
Seriously, though, is your sister the kind of person who's ever even contemplated the possibility that the Christian God might, based on the description of His actions and the like, be a wee bit evil? If she finds even the thought too ghastly to consider, she'd probably have some trouble getting past the novel's main conceit.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:I haven't read them at all, but my understanding is that it paints God as the ulitimate evil and Satan as the noble hero. That is pretty blasphemous to Christianity.
Not exactly. Read the books. I got a different take on it, but I won't go into it until you read it.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
I changed my mind. It's not a beef so much as a...well, just read the interview.
Posted by the_Somalian (Member # 6688) on :
In the canon of western literature, it stands at the top right benath Herbert's Dune.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Decide for yourself... But, if I like a book or a series it's bond to be good... Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
*the point of the books whistled over my head*
I'll have to read them again, but I think that Philip Pullman hasn't written a children's book, he's written an adult book that happens to contain children. Can you really seriously call a novel with themes and ideas like that a children's book? A movie won't get it- a movie couldn't get all that. Not a movie made for children.
And he is attacking religion, but not just spiritual religion, he's attacking belief. He simply has another idea. He's merely a man with an idea, same as all other people with ideas (religious or otherwise), you can believe it, if you wish, or you can dismiss parts or all of it. To him, I suppose, Christianity is blasphemous.
I second the fact that the Sally Lockhart books are good. They are completely different. There is hardly any (I say hardly any, because there so definately is still some) views on religion and belief.
Think of these books as a very long and complicated rant.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Spoiler-
Here's the theme. It's not so much as an attack on religion, it's more of an attack on the horrible things people do in the name of religion and the way groups of people can distort those pure themes to use them to control other people and turn them into slaves taking all the joy and pleasure out of life which is the real point....
End spoiler.
Read it and form your own conclusion!
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: Seriously, though, is your sister the kind of person who's ever even contemplated the possibility that the Christian God might, based on the description of His actions and the like, be a wee bit evil? If she finds even the thought too ghastly to consider, she'd probably have some trouble getting past the novel's main conceit.
I cannot speak for her, but I expect she hasn't considered such an idea and finds it repugnant. But I am pretty sure that the books disturbed her before that aspect was brought in towards the end.
It reminds me of the story-line of Babylon 5 with the Shadows and Vorlons, two opposing powerful forces seeking to shape lesser sentient life in the galaxy. They both represent two very different approaches and for some of the time we look on the Shadows as evil and the Vorlons as good. (We discover that the Vorlons have been responsible for "planting" religion on the different worlds also.) Later we are introduced to the idea that the Shadows' aim is really the betterment of sentient life, but we are still left with the feeling that they are going about it in an evil way.
Later, we begin to get the feeling that the Vorlons aren't so noble and lofty as was first believed. In fact, in different ways, they are downright evil also. Mankind basically tells both to "take a hike" saying we are grown-up now and can find our way on our own. They both leave and man has "triumphed".
This storyline could be interpreted as being anti-God also. The idea that we don't need God any more than we need Satan and we would be better off on our own.
Because of my beliefs, that ending did nothing for me, personally. I would have preferred for the Vorlons to have remained "angelic", "pure", and "wise" the way they were first portrayed.
Anyway, I am rambling here, just talking about how different people respond to speculative fiction's dealing with religious issues. While a lot of people find this "twist" in the B5 plot empowering, I found it disappointing.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: Decide for yourself... But, if I like a book or a series it's bond to be good... [Big Grin]
Heh, this reminds me of Porter's definition of "cool". Cool: Stuff I like. Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
I really really liked the three books.
I think I did like the first book better, but I didn't not enjoy the second and third. I wasn't disturbed by them, but then I never even thought about them as anything but fantasy set in an alternate universe.
I guess I also veiw fiction that is capable of disturbing me as very powerful writing - so I tend to enjoy it for that aspect alone.
They have been marketed as young adult fiction, but in my opinion they are not. Pullman suffers from the marketing concept that a lot of authors suffer from - if it's fantasy based and has young characters, it must be for kids. Which in many cases is absolute rubbish, but the books are marketed that way.
(Not that I'm engaged to an author who writes in that market or anything...)
So just because kids read it - I would never ever take that as a reason not to give it a go.
I'd say read it. Keep in mind that it is fiction. And maybe if you are disturbed by it, you can use that to think more about why, and your own values and ethics. A bit of self-examination prompted by an external source is always a good thing - no matter what the conclusion.
Or you may just love it. Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
And, if you are disturbed by it, just write about it here, because I am curious to see your full impression of it.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Yeah, if I do go ahead and read it, I will ressurrect this thread so we can have a big ol' spoiler chat. I will just have to warn everyone in the title. ^_^
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote: It's not so much as an attack on religion, it's more of an attack on the horrible things people do in the name of religion and the way groups of people can distort those pure themes to use them to control other people and turn them into slaves taking all the joy and pleasure out of life which is the real point
What Syn said is better. I change my 'attack on religion' phrase to 'attack on the horrible things people do in the name of religion, which has somehow become, in many cases, synonymous in many minds with religion.'
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I hope that you do decide to read it bev--I'm interested to hear what you think of the series. Porter, are you considering reading it as well?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I will answer for Porter briefly (he hasn't been on as much lately and I'm not sure he has seen this thread at all) if I do read it, I will attempt to get him to read it with me. I love reading books together with him, though we don't do it often enough anymore. This would be a good opportunity.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Christine and I like to do that too, although we don't do it often enough. I'm in the middle of reading her Kiln People at the moment.
Posted by AmkaProblemka (Member # 6495) on :
I read the first book and enjoyed it. I've wondered if theology wouldn't be turned upside down later because of the name of a character and the fact that every human in the world of the first book is born with a daemon. An interesting concept. I'm not going to be too offended if it is doing what I think it is doing, and simply turning Dante upside down.
Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
Neat interview, sacrcasticmuppet, thanks for the link...
At one point he says
quote:Every single religion that has a monotheistic god ends up by persecuting other people and killing them because they don’t accept him. Wherever you look in history, you find that. It’s still going on.
... which made me wonder if he thinks polytheists are more religiously tolerant... though he also criticizes anyone (Maoists, Marxists, Stalin, etc.) who takes a doctrine and holds it up as THE truth and kills all those who disagree...
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:It's not so much as an attack on religion, it's more of an attack on the horrible things people do in the name of religion and the way groups of people can distort those pure themes to use them to control other people and turn them into slaves taking all the joy and pleasure out of life which is the real point....
I'd be a lot more sympathetic to this point if it wasn't so often used to attack any form of moral teaching.
I stopped reading after the second book (before amber spyglass came out), because I just didn't care what happened at that point.
Dagonee
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
So, Dag would you *not* recommend these books? Or perhaps only recommend the first?
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
I find this funny. I never heard anyone in France talking about the blasphemous subject while talking about "Dark Materials". I guess that's a pretty American thing, like, in the extreme, people saying Harry Potter is bad for children because you don't want them to become sorcerers. *sigh*. I read Pullman's books and absolutely loved then (the second least of the three). It's a very powerfull writing, and, would I be you, I wouldn't focus on the religious thing. You can understand it in many ways anyway, and personally I understood it as an attack of anyone being too extreme about their beliefs, religious or political. The part about death and the Harpies is beautiful. I nearly cried often reading these books.
[ August 19, 2004, 02:19 PM: Message edited by: Anna ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Don't give it away! That's one of the best most beautiful parts of the series. It has an EXCELLENT MESSAGE.
Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
I thought the 2nd book was great, so I'm surprised to hear a lot of folks say it's their least favorite...
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
really plaid? I was incredibly disappointed by The Subtle Knife. When I eventually get around to rereading these I'll have to keep your thoughts in mind while reading the second book. How did you feel that it stacked up against #1 and #3?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:So, Dag would you *not* recommend these books? Or perhaps only recommend the first?
I don't know - it's the rare series that I'll put down in the middle, no matter how bad it is. The reason I put it down was the story, not any underlying philosophies. I thought it was poorly constructed and contrived in several places, and by the end of book 2 I couldn't read a page without being yanked out of the story. So I just never spent the time or money on book 3.
As to the theological issues, there's a lot of difference between saying Harry Potter is blasphemous and saying HDM is blasephemous, although I'm not sure I'd use the term for either. Pullman intentionally implemented this theme, so any criticism directed at it is fair game.
Dagonee
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
There is a HUGE difference between reading things into Harry Potter and criticizing a book that actually uses the Catholic church and God as characters.
I don’t recommend the books. I’m not offended by them, I enjoyed the first book, but I didn’t find reading the whole series to be worth the time when there are so many wonderful books to be read.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
I made mention of this before, but the problem I had wasn't so much with the critique, but that the doctrine Pullman comes up with as an alternative (and how he depicts it) is so bland and conventional. That is (and I don't think this is a spoiler, but I will put in a few [strike]hard returns[/strike]empty lines for those who are spoiler sensitive):
EDIT: I get it -- you have to do something like this...
> > > > > > > > > > > >
Sex = (good) dangerous knowledge
-- And --
We're all part of one sort of universal spirit/conscioussness/existence.
Yawn.
How he gets to his conclusion is interesting. And I love the fantasy elements of the series -- the daemons are very cool. But I expected more.
[ August 19, 2004, 03:31 PM: Message edited by: Zalmoxis ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Synth, you have to understand that my sister has already told me a great many things about the book. I've had plenty of spoiler's already.
I also am intrigued by those who compare the anti-religious aspects in HDM to witchcraft in Harry Potter. Dana has an excellent point here, and while I haven't read the books, it seems like there is a difference to me. There are plenty of books that include magic and all matter of ideas that extreme Christian conservatives deem "evil". But they are not as popular as Harry Potter and so people don't make as big a "stink" about it.
Dark Materials, IMO, does more than attack people who do evil in the name of God. If that is all it did, I would have no problem with it. It seems to take the very basic principles of Christian morality and turn them on their ear. Of course this wouldn't bother people who do not hold to the fundamental principles of Christianity. But those who do would be bothered just as those who find Christianity repugnant are likely to be disturbed by The Chronicles of Narnia and have no desire to read them, regardless of how imaginitive or wondrous they are.
While OSC includes much ugliness in his books, he never portrays an amoral universe. He lets ugliness be ugly and nobleness be noble rather than trying to turn morality upside down. That is what I like about his writings. His is a universe that can fit comfortably inside my head. Sometimes his writings seem a bit contrived, but he is doing more than telling a story, he is presenting his ideas about things. The story is a lovely and compelling background for those ideas. I expect it is the same with HDM. I don't know if Pullman's universe would exist comfortably in my head.
I am still undecided on whether or not I intend to read them.
[ August 19, 2004, 03:50 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
I am really interested in this because my neighbor wanted to lend them to my 7 year old...I have heard some comparisons to DM and HP, noting that the DM universe is amoral as opposed to the inherent morality in HP...I know for sure I will preview them before deciding if my son can read them.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Just read them and find out. By the way, It isn't the Catholic church in the book. It's, I believe, a Calvinist system.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: Just read them and find out.
[tangent] You know, I keep giving people this advice about LDS-specific scripture, and they keep not listening to me. [/tangent]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:By the way, It isn't the Catholic church in the book. It's, I believe, a Calvinist system.
I was going to point this out, but it seemed to self-serving.
Dagonee
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Yeah, it was an oops on my part. It's been about five years since I read the books.
Edit: and his comments about the assumption of Mary and the pope in the interveiw linked above distracted me.
[ August 19, 2004, 04:33 PM: Message edited by: dkw ]
Posted by beatnix19 (Member # 5836) on :
I really liked these books but I totally missed the whole theological thing. But this doesn't surprise me much. I often miss alot of the underlying themes the first time I read a book and I've only read these once. I get too wrapped up in the general story and the characters to pay much attention to what it all "means" This is wy I usually read a lot of books multiple times. The same thing with Martins boks to a lesser degre. I flew through them because I loved the action and what each of the characters were doing. When I finally finished I read the spoilers thread and realized I had missed some rather obvious details. But I just register that up to good story telling. I put Pullman in this catagory. He tells a great story and a lot of people will just really enjoy the story.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
This thread is making me want to reread The Amber Spyglass. I love the images in that book, but sometimes the language was a bit thick. But first I've got to read- American Gods Someone to Love Pictures in the Dark and the book about being Geeky someone mentioned in another thread.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
American Gods got very high reviews from my wife - it's on my list.
I read the first page - Gaiman's prose is amazing.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I have come to the conclusion that I don't read enough. Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Gaiman rocks. He has a great way with words I love that cracks me up sometimes. American Gods is a very male kind of a book. Sandman is delightfully disturbing and Neverwhere was just awesome. *loves his books* *reads constantly even while trying to cook*
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
My problem is my short attention span. It really is a problem. One of the reasons I have read OSC is that he is one of the few authors who can reel me in and hold me there. It is dangerous, because I will read at the expense of other important parts of my life. But too often with other authors I get "stuck" where I loose my desire to continue. It is a bad habit of mine.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I read one of his Sandman graphic stories (it was illustrated in watercolors, not done as a comic) about a monk, a fox, and the king of dreams. It was a retelling of a fairy tale (I can't remember if it was Chinese or Japanese). I was utterly blown away.
"He will learn what it means to take something from a fox."
Bone-chilling.
Dagonee
Posted by dangermom (Member # 1676) on :
For bev's information, I'll say I'm LDS. I read the books as they came out. I loved the first one, liked the second one a lot (I think it has some very strong points, doesn't suffer from being the middle volume nearly as much as usual), and was really, really looking forward to the last one.
And I hated it. I mean, I haven't read the trilogy since, and up till then, I'd read the first one about 4 times. I felt that he let his personal dislike of religion ruin the story, and it was confusing and muddled as well. I felt that he let the often-awful actions done in the name of religion get mixed up with the idea of religion, if that makes any sense. Like Zalmoxis, I was disappointed at the blah 'philosophy' at the end.
I have a friend who said he didn't finish the books because he felt very strongly that there was a very dark core to them, which made him unhappy. (He is not particularly religious.)
That said, I think you should read them, bev. The first two are great, and at least you'll know what's there. Or don't read them; it's up to you. You could always leave the last one out. Someday I'll pick them up again, but I doubt that I'll ever read the last one again, which is a shame as I have a lovely hardback copy in my bookshelf.
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
I had heard these books denounced before, and in such terms that I wasn't really interested in reading them. Now I'm reconsidering.
My relationship with anti-religious or anti-Christian books (both fiction and non) is quite conflicted; they tend to strike me in three distinct ways.
There are those in which I find amused, but strained, agreement--usually taking positions that I agree with about some particular church but clearly meaning to take on Christianity as a whole. Some authors, for instance, take on the hierarchial priesthood found in the Catholic church and apparently imagine every church is like this. I'm no fan of hierarchies either, but the author speaks in such terms that it's clear they were aiming at me too and missed. Job: A Comedy of Justice struck me this way, Heinlein clearly knew not all churches were the same, as he incorporates doctrines from a wide variety of them--but somehow he missed hitting anything I agreed with.
There are a few that I find myself in wholehearted agreement with, usually attacking some conception of God that I can't understand how anyone could believe in. Unfair or not, I have been known to compare the Calvinist concept of God to Big Brother (of 1984) and to Satan; that's really how it appears to me. An author writing exclusively to this concept (even if he thinks it represents all Christians) will be hard-pressed to offend me. I can't recall any such book at the moment. Armageddon struck this nerve in the opposite way, though; having justified the whole series of divine judgements as meant to bring people to repentance, it then depicted characters desperately trying to repent but not allowed to because they had waited too long. (That's the Left Behind book, not the asteroid movie.)
And then there's the other side, the one that's purely repugnant even if the story is interesting. "Deathbird" (by, I think, Poul Anderson) struck me this way, portraying God as an insane alien with no redeeming qualities. In this case, the hero's euthanasia of the planet was a contributing factor--the author seemed to be portraying death purely as release and "God" as evil for refusing to give it.
I have no idea how HDM will affect me...so perhaps I should give it a shot.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:American Gods is a very male kind of a book.
That's an intriguing observation Syn--I honestly don't know what it means. What makes is a male book? Don't worry about spoilers on my account--I've read it already, and loved it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Do worry about spoilers on my account, though. All I know is the guy starts the book in prison.
Dagonee
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:My problem is my short attention span. It really is a problem. One of the reasons I have read OSC is that he is one of the few authors who can reel me in and hold me there.
Bev, have you read any of Octavia Butler's work? I was struck by how completely she drew me into her books (well, the good ones, anyway ). I think that her single best book is probably Wild Seed (which, interestingly enough, is the fascinating prequal to a fairly dull series. It was written much later than the rest of the Patternmaster book, and you can really see how much she's grown as an author between the writing of the series and the prequal). Her Dawn, and the rest of the Xenogenesis trilogy that it begins, is incredibly involving as well. Best drawn alien race in SF, I'm convinced.
Posted by AmkaProblemka (Member # 6495) on :
Someone mentioned American Gods.
I have to admit I didn't like it. I kept waiting for the protagonist to DO something. Even the idea of modern pagan gods wasn't realized well enough for me, and Gaiman failed to make me care for anyone.
Posted by AmkaProblemka (Member # 6495) on :
I heartily second the Octavia Butler recommendation.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Octavia Butler is so cool
Gaiman described it like that. It's about a bunch of guys driving around on a journey and they seem to *ahem* whip it out and pee a lot all through it. But, the best and strongest character in the book is female. Shadow seems more like... well, a Shadow, just doing what he is told... Until the Vigil. I love the Vigil.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: Bev, have you read any of Octavia Butler's work?
No, I know nothing of Octavia Butler. Maybe I should give her a try. My sister is so much more wide-read than I, ever since I can remember she has contributed to a long list of "books I should read someday". I will ask her if she has read Butler.
Dangermom, Dagonee, and Dana, thank you in particular for your thoughts on the books. I think there are books out there that I consider "evil" and I am trying to figure out if this series would fall under that category. There are some books that introduce ideas contrary to my beliefs and I just roll my eyes at them because of how contrived or misguided they seem ot me, or at best say, "hmmm, interesting." There are others, though, that just have a "dark feel" to them as you described. I am not interested in reading such books in that I believe my time is better spent reading something else that will contribute to who I want to be.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
I'm a little curious - what books do you qualify as evil?
-Trevor
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: I think there are books out there that I consider "evil" and I am trying to figure out if this series would fall under that category.
I agree some are, but I wouldn't call this one evil. It's up front - I think a book has to be seductive in some way to be evil, not just express evil ideas.
Dagonee
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I personally found C.S. Lewis' Perlandria to have a bit of an evil feel to me, which is surprising considering my hearty agreement with most of his other writings. It has to do with a fundamental difference in view of "the fall". I also was creeped out by some aspects of his That Hiddeous Strength. Certainly I feel that certain aspects to Pierce Anthony's writings had a negative effect on me growing up, to the point where I made a conscious decision to stop reading his books.
I am trying to think of a book I have read that I would consider evil.... Nothing specific comes to mind. It was more of a hypothetical sentiment. Remember, I am not terribly well-read, especially for a Hatracker. Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Dag, that is interesting. I think one of the reasons for my concern is that my sister found it to be seductive. She felt it painted a beautiful view of certain things she found repugnant--like the view on an afterlife or lack thereof.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:It has to do with a fundamental difference in view of "the fall"
There's no getting around that. It's one of the starkest differences in LDS v. Catholic/Traditional Protestant theology from what I've heard.
If you like books with modern paganism, That Hideous Strength has that, albeit from a Christian perspective.
Dagonee
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I think that you'll fall in love with Butler's work bev. I don't think that I'd start with her newest novels, the Parable series (Parable of the Sower and Parable of the Talents though. Those two are very, very well written, but were a little painful for me to read. If you like short stories, you can get a fairly good tast of Butler with Blood Child, which is a (fairly slender) collection of all of her published short fiction.
Anybody know what she's working on these days? Parable of the Talents came out a long time ago, and I can't seem to find anything online to suggest what she's working on.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Maybe I was too put off by the story to be seduced by it. Although it's the little changes that are usually seductive - this was so obviously not in agreement with my own beliefs that I just accepted that up front.
Dagonee
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
His Dark Materials is one of the series that shaped my paradigm.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Synesthesia, I got that feeling from the previous posts where you mentioned the series. I thought to myself, this trilogy is *really* important to her. Perhaps so much that it has helped her to form and solidify some of her deepest ideas. I do get the feeling that this work has been very influential. That gives me some pause.
Dag, yeah, it is true that LDS and Catholic views of the Fall are pretty different. I might even add most of Christianity with the Catholics. LDS perspective is that the Fall was necessary to progression. It seems much of Christiandom wishes the Fall never happened. Perlandria totally supports the latter idea.
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
That's pretty much the case, Bev...I can't think of any other church that agrees with you. (Despite it being suggested in one of my early church classes that if not for the Fall it would just be Adam and Eve still.)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
In fact, it takes pretty hard literary swipes at the progression idea, too, since that's Weston's main argument for breaking the commandment. I don't know how closely his version matched the LDS teachings, so take this as a very general statement.
Dagonee
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
It was funny because the whole time I was reading it I was thinking, Dude. Satan is right. Listen to him! Heh.
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
Dag, I think Lewis was aiming more at secular concepts of progression, or quasi-mystical ones like that of Teilhard de Chardin--what's sometimes called "transhumanism" nowadays. It hadn't occurred to me to associate Perelandra with LDS teachings on the subject. I have read somewhere that the Space Trilogy was aimed primarily at a novel called First and Last Men, but can tell you little about it.
And for the record, in Out of the Silent Planet, I had my own moment of sympathy for the devil..."You say Maleldil let all go dead. Me like Bent One better. He fight, jump, live! Not all talkee-talkee."
[ August 19, 2004, 06:38 PM: Message edited by: Mabus ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Of course, it could be interpreted that the Fall on earth was necessary for progression, but the next needed progression is a race that passes the test.
Just rampant speculation, not something I believe at all.
Dagonee
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
Warning: I'm going to be absolutely Mormon-centric here ---->
The Mormon version of the Fall and what it is about and leads to and why it was a 'good' thing is incredibly more interesting than Pullman's view of the Fall -- probably because his is developed in reaction to a mainstream Christian (and as synth and dag note -- Calvinist) perspective.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Mabus, I don't think he aimed it at LDS, I just think his argument was broad enough to cover both.
Dagonee
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
Um...what is Pullman's view, anyway?
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
I get it, Dagonee...I misinterpreted your phrasing of "taking swipes at". My bad.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
As an aside, the discussion on the islands between Weston, the Queen, and Ransom is one of the best philosophical dialogues I've ever read.
Dagonee
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
I enjoyed it too...at the moment, however, what I can remember of it seems "off" somehow. Perhaps it's a matter of my own beliefs not quite meshing with Lewis' either.
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
quote: Dude. Satan is right. Listen to him! Heh.
You know this is gonna have to go in the Out of Context thread?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Mabus:
quote: Of course, it could be interpreted that the Fall on earth was necessary for progression, but the next needed progression is a race that passes the test.
I would change "race" to "individuals". The LDS view our progression as being a sort of sifting process, the end state determined by how each individual deals with their specific life, all advantages and disadvantages taken into account and a full understanding of spiritual matters being necessary before a proper judgement can be made. Said understanding can come in this life or the next, being better if it comes in this life.
Edit: Somehow I missed ever reading Out of the Silent Planet. I need to read it one of these days.
Edit2: Dag, I just went back and reread your post and realized you were saying something totally different than I thought you were saying. If I understand you, I don't think that is what C.S. Lewis was trying to say. I think he was trying to set up a speculative Paradise Lost story where Adam and Eve choose not to fall and present the idea of how great it would have been if our Adam and Eve had made that choice. I personally reject this sentiment.
[ August 19, 2004, 07:28 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
That's definitely what he was trying to say. I was just pointing out that it's possible to interpret it the other way, depending on how much you think author's intent matters in literary criticisim.
Dagonee
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Interesting. I can see room for that interpretation, even if it was not his intent.
Back to the Dark Materials series, even if I find the book utterly unseductive and a very entertaining read, if the premise it is based on is not one that fits my own paradigm, I will ultimately find the series unsatisfying in it's resolution. It reminds me of all the contrived romance movies with sappy happy endings that I can't stand. If it is too contrived to sell me on the story, I will ultimately be left unsatisfied. For instance, I found "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" unsatisfying while I found "Shakespear in Love" to be one of the best romances I had ever encountered.
Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
Noemon -- I liked the first 2 books the best, the 3rd one less. I liked the first one just a bit better, but still thought the 2nd one was great -- introduces new characters, kills off old ones, develops and deepens the plot, new settings... basically, it kept things moving, where sometimes a middle book will stagnate... probably my only annoyance with the 2nd book was that Lyra's suddenly passive in the early part of the book, letting Will do much of the thinking... she gets her spunk back later, but that early passivity seemed out of character.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Pullman's introduction of intense religious warfare in the third book didn't throw me-- but Mary's playing the part of the serpent to Will and Lyra's Adam and Eve certainly did.
If the book has any moral failings, it's germination of the idea that it's okay for children as young as Lyra and Will to be experimenting sexually, which is what may be implied by what is written.
That was my reaction upon reading the book for the first time.
I listened to it about a year and a half later, and got the impression that Lyra and Will were much older than I had thought; but if I recall, Lyra was ~10 or so when she set out after Roger; and Will wasn't much older when he went through the window to Citta Gazze. Still, way too young to be acting out the parts of Adam and Eve.
The whole bit about the Authority being wicked and the rebellious angels being in the right-- it's been done before. Even Milton (heck, Pullman drew the title of the stories from Paradise Lost) made the devil attractive.
Anyway, I thouroughly enjoyed the books, except for that one piece. Which, though a 'sexual awakening' is hinted at, I'm not willing to blow it out of proportion-- it's as easy to say that Pullman is corrupting childood, as to say that Lyra and Will's relationship was innocent.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
[/tangent]