Was CS Lewis' Narnia intended to "bash" athiesm? I rather doubt it. It was a story that also expressed his deep-seated beliefs. I believe the same about the Golden Compass.

There are attempts going on all over the country to ban this book and the movie, and control the thoughts that authors are allowed to express.

http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/ban-the-golden-compass-from-our-schools.html

I would say that the attempt to silence non-Christian authors or authors of "unpopular" branches of Christianity is of more importance than some supposed "conspiracy" on Pullman's part.

[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited November 23, 2007).]

quote:

---

There are attempts going on all over the country to ban this book and the movie, and control the thoughts that authors are allowed to express.

---

You can argue the merits of controlling literature in certain contexts, JeanneT (would you allow the Bible in schools?), but limiting distribution of a book is nothing close to "controlling the thoughts" of an author. The statement is pure hyperbole. If you are going to take such a position, then keeping textual pornography out of the schools is also "controlling the thoughts" that an author can express.

Regarding the books, I have not read them, so I cannot speak to them. However, I have heard specific things that indicate to me that they do truly attack and condemn Christianity--especially the Catholic Church. So I truly doubt it is just a case of "hysteria," as you say. I guess I'm going to have to read them after all so that I can speak to this.

quote:

---

Critics of Pullman's books point to the strong anti-religion and anti-God themes they incorporate, and although literary works are subject to a variety of interpretations, Pullman left little doubt about his intentions when he said in a 2003 interview with The Sydney Morning Herald that "My books are about killing God."

---

*In**his**own**words*.

What? They do?

As a teacher I come across some crazy stuff kids read. One day after class one of my students told me that she was reading a book where a woman had sex with her own son. What was my first question: 'Do your parents know your reading this book?' In this case they did and she had spoken to her mother about the book, which her mother had also read. Because this was the case everything should be under control.

I have advised parents to read Harry Potter for two reasons: 1. So they don't have to rely on 'hype' to know what is actually in the books and 2. So they can discuss the supernatural themes with their children.

IMHO No book is 'bad' no book should be banned, but if children or teenagers are reading something they should be able to discuss the themes with their parents, or if it is a school text, their teacher or class. Whether the theme is the danger of blindly following religion, homosexuality, death, magic or anything else.

Here's the deal. The Liberal program wants the regulation to occur according to the morals of liberals. They want to impose their world-view upon the system and upon the rest of us. They pretend that traditional minded people (usually referred to with pejoratives such as "right-winged wackos" and "conservative hysteria") are the ones imposing restrictions--not them. Then they impose their restrictions based on the Lie that they do not impose restrictions. But they *do* impose restrictions--it isn't the traditionalists who are restricting the Bible and a whole lot of other literature that traditionalists would allow in schools. It's the Liberals. Why should the traditionalists sit back while the liberals impose their morals upon everything, and then force the traditionalists to suffer all the destructive consequences of it?

Unless one is a complete anarchist (which means they have a whole lot of other problems) that insists on absolutely no rules or regulation in society--it is a completely and utterly self-contradictory position.

quote:

---

Once you agree that we must regulate things morally, it makes no sense to object to people making moral judgments about what should be regulated. In fact, it is self-contradictory to do so.

---

Tell me this, is NARNIA banned in schools? Do you WANT it banned in schools?

If you ban one, then you should ban the other.

Oh, Pullman ADMITS he's an athiest? Did CS Lewis ADMIT he was a Catholic? So one is fine. He should espouse and preach his religious beliefs but the other is evil for doing EXACTLY the same thing?

What you are preaching is banning any book that disagrees with YOUR religious beliefs.

Hypocrisy anyone?

quote:

---

IMHO No book is 'bad' no book should be banned,...

---

Well, I disagree with you on that one point, but we don't need to hash that out. It is more important to point out that "No book is 'bad'" and "no book should be banned," are value judgments based upon your morality.

I also think that it might be difficult for busy parents to encourage a child to read and also to read everything they do. Without having the wherewithal to do both, the discussion needs to assume that there will be bad things they read that the parents won't ever see, so the child needs to understand that we can read for enjoyment while also taking into consideration that there might be some bad things, and they shouldn't be blind about it.

I happen to BE an atheist, thank you very much. Yes, my entire family are atheists including one who is a high school math teacher.

Do you want to burn us at the stake, ban us from publishing books, or just fire us from any job where we happen to speak to children?

But of course if someone proposed the SAME for your religious belief they would be totally evil, not to mention LIBERAL (shudder). It is only MY religious beliefs which you are perfectly free to attack.

Obviously, I will not discuss this further.

quote:

---

Oh the LIBERAL position is to stop debate which is why the CONSERVATIVES want to stop this book.

---

I think you understand me correctly. YES, both liberals and conservatives (and everyone else) want to hinder each other in various ways. These are specific examples. The difference is--Liberals pretend that they are not doing so, and they vilify conservatives and others for doing so. It is self-contradictory. And--if you want to call it hypocrisy--be my guest.

But there are, of course, nuances. Not all conservatives want to stop the book, for example.

And--by the way--I am NOT a conservative by any modern understanding of the word. (To me, "conservatives" are just a different configuration of liberals.)

quote:

---

Tell me this, is NARNIA banned in schools? Do you WANT it banned in schooles?

---

What on earth have I said that would give you that idea?

quote:

---

If you ban one, then you should ban the other.

---

Um. Let’s see. If you ban porn, you should ban everything else? We cannot make any judgments at all about what is appropriate?

And you still haven't answered me-- should the Bible be banned from schools, or not?

quote:

---

Oh, Pullman ADMITS he's an athiest?

---

If that were all he were doing, it wouldn't be a problem. I think you know that the conversation is about much more than that, though.

quote:

---

Did CS Lewis ADMIT he was a Catholic?

---

Of course not. He wasn't a Catholic. He was an Anglican. I'm sure he's a good Catholic now, though.

quote:

---

So one is fine. He should espouse an preach his religious believes but the other is evil for doing EXACTLY the same thing?

---

By distilling the conversation above into this over-simplification, it makes me wonder if you are actually interested in exploring the truth here. C.S. Lewis did not say his mission was to "kill the giant NUL," and, if the things I've heard are correct, he didn't attack and vilify atheists the way Pullman attacked and vilified Christianity and Catholicism. Explicitly expressing that his mission is to "kill God" with his books is some pretty potent stuff already. (I definitely will have to read them now to find out who's telling the truth about them. I do trust the sources somewhat that discussed the attacks, but I can't really speak to them without having read the books.)

quote:

---

Hypocrisy anyone?

---

Possibly. But I am more inclined to believe you are just reacting emotionally and quickly, and would do better if you calmed down, gave it more time, and explored what I am actually saying here.

quote:

---

Comparing someone's atheism with pornography is the most self-serving comment I have ever seen. You should be ashamed of yourself.

---

I actually had to chuckle at that.

Do you really believe that is what I did? If you calm down and read a little more carefully (or, perhaps, ask for clarification), you would find that I did not compare it to pornography.

Unless you are simply looking for cheap shots, in which case you should be ashamed of yourself.

(Really? The most self-serving comment ever?!)

quote:

---

I happen to BE an atheist, thank you very much. Yes, my entire family are atheists including one who is a high school math teacher.

---

No one has attacked your character or anyone else's as an atheist. I have friends and family who are atheists and agnostics. Some of my favorite authors to read--some even philosophers--are atheists. I'm not sure why you feel so threatened right now. (Would it make you feel better to know that I would object to a book that was uncharitable to atheists?)

quote:

---

Do you want to burn us at the stake, ban us from publishing books, or just fire us from any job where we happen to speak to children?

---

Again, I chuckle. Who has suggested anything of the kind? Certainly not me. (You wouldn't be trying to characterize me with such false claims, would you? If you say it enough, people will believe you, right?)

quote:

---

But of course if someone proposed the SAME for your religious belief they would be totally evil, not to mention LIBERAL (shudder).

---

I think you completely misunderstand my position. I don't advocate uncharitable or unloving behavior toward anyone--even liberal (shudder) atheists. (That's not to say I'm not guilty of it sometimes. I sincerely hope I have been charitable enough here.) I am simply stating that in the struggle for regulating things (in this specific case books in schools), Liberal morality does not have any moral superiority over traditional morality, and we should not lay down and allow destructive things in our schools (and keep good things out) just because the tyranny of Liberalism says we should.

See--traditionalists want to fight for reasonable morality. Liberals want to prevent the fight from happening and impose all of their values, and there is no end to their indignation when they are told that they should really have to face the struggle on an even playing field.

quote:

---

It is only MY religious beliefs which you are perfectly free to attack.

---

Where have I or anyone else attacked your religious beliefs? (Hint: nowhere.)

quote:

---

Obviously, I will not discuss this further.

---

I think that's the wisest thing you have said, so far.

quote:

---

skadder, it is hard to believe that you really mean what you are saying.

---

Yes, it is hard. No, I don't mean there shouldn't be some controls. I believe that parents should decide what their children can or can't read--terroist manuals and pornography to one side.

Certainly I don't believe descisions should be made by people who have strong religious beliefs(as there are many versions of religious beliefs), although I think they should be allowed to to say that they don't want thier children to read these books.

When I was ten or eleven I used to read Sven Hassel which I am sure wouldn't have been approved by any responsible adult now.

quote:

---

Didn't do me any harm...now if you'll excuse me I have to go down to my cellar...

---

-chuckle-

Yeah. I read the misogynist Gor books, and I'm okay.

But do you know how hard it is to type while in a straitjacket?

quote:

---

Certainly I don't believe descisions should be made by people who have strong religious beliefs(as there are many versions of religious beliefs), although I think they should be allowed to to say that they don't want thier children to read these books.

---

Let me make sure I understand you. You don't think anyone with strong morals should be allowed to affect the decisions? Why not? Only people with wishy-washy morals should make decisions? Why?

In my experience, Liberal moralists can be just as zealous about their values as traditionalists can.

All this aside--we will never reach a consensus on this point--which supports my conclusion that a parent is ultimately responsible for bringing their own children into the world and so should have the right to decide.

Cup of tea, anyone?

-- start extract --

How do you respond to the claim that your books are anti-Catholic and promote atheism? Lyndsay Petersen, Parkersburg, Iowa

Hello, Lyndsay: In the world of the story — Lyra’s world — there is a church that has acquired great political power, rather in the way that some religions in our world have done at various times, and still do (think of the Taliban in Afghanistan). My point is that religion is at its best — it does most good — when it is farthest away from political power, and that when it gets hold of the power to (for example) send armies to war or to condemn people to death, or to rule every aspect of our lives, it rapidly goes bad. Sometimes people think that if something is done in the name of faith or religion, it must be good. Unfortunately, that isn’t true; some things done in the name of religion are very bad. That was what I was trying to describe in my story.

I think the qualities that the books celebrate are those such as kindness, love, courage and courtesy too. And intellectual curiosity. All these good things. And the qualities that the books attack are cold-heartedness, tyranny, close-mindedness, cruelty, the things that we all agree are bad things.

-- end extract --

And later:

-- another extract --

As for the atheism, it doesn’t matter to me whether people believe in God or not, so I’m not promoting anything of that sort. What I do care about is whether people are cruel or whether they’re kind, whether they act for democracy or for tyranny, whether they believe in open-minded enquiry or in shutting the freedom of thought and expression. Good things have been done in the name of religion, and so have bad things; and both good things and bad things have been done with no religion at all. What I care about is the good, wherever it comes from.

-- end extract --

In this interview he doesn't say he wants to kill God or anything like, and appears rather more thoughtful than that. He seems to me to be tolerating faith even though himself he's not a believer, and attacking the bad things that are done in the name of religion rather than God.

Is there evidence of him actually saying he wants to kill God or is this an argument about something the newspapers made up in order to increase sales?

(And it's true too that there are those who will ascribe messages to books in order to drive their own agenda, regardless of any message the author may have intended.)

The bibles weren't banned. They were books, and in my opinion, still and interesting and historical record from an important part of the Western Civilization that most of us are coming from.

The real problem for some is that these books aren't used as texts. The problem for others is that their alternative (290s views) don't seem to be recognized or respected.

I guess I'm an "other," so the folks on Lost will probably hunt me down and kill me too.... :-)

I think skadder has the most applicable and democratic approach here (the irony that he's a Brit who's reminding us Americans about the fundamental aspects of a free democracy shouldn't be lost on any of us). Although, perhaps it should be explored and remembered a bit more, considering that in a country that claims it was founded on the right of religious freedom, we did such a horrible job managing that responsiblity in its first 150 years.

The reason why the first amendment to the constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances," is that the Puritans quadrupled the taxes on anybody that lived in Massachussetts and refused to practice Puritanism. If they refused to convert, and were vocal about it, their denomination was often branded on their forehead, and any "God fearing" puritans weren't allowed to give them food, shelter, or comfort.

This history of this argument forward had taken on a different perspective. But it hasn't changed all that much.

And now, since I've broken my own rule about being baited in having this debate in this forum, I suggest that we all focus on the attributes of writing, and leave the religious and political arguments to other blogs.

[This message has been edited by Igwiz (edited November 23, 2007).]

I broke my rule about not getting into such discussions too :-(

And yes, tea's a good idea, preferably Assam.

One point: (And for clarification, I absolutely loved book one: the Golden Compass)

All talk of banning books aside. (I'm against banning books, BTW, but I am not against voting with one's pocket book to support or deny support for those whose work one enjoys/doesn't enjoy.)

I'm concerned by the comparison between the Pullman series and the Narnia books. C. S. Lewis used metaphor and symbolism. Aslan was a Christ figure, but he was not Christ. In the Pullman series (which, yes, I have read) the children confront God. Whether they kill Him or free Him is open to debate. It happens in book three, roughly the mid to late thirties chapter-wise.

In my mind there is a tremendous difference between religious metaphor and what Pullman did.

Edit: Ack! I started posting this a while ago... before the trend toward ending the discussion. Sorry about that.

Cheers

1. Character - As a main character, I find Lyra to be an irritant. More, even; she's actively abrasive to me. She's the only person who can use the alethiometer (fantasy trope right there) and her only other characteristic that I could really see, other than being adventurous (which is another ol' stand-by), is that she is a bald-faced-out-and-out liar. Once that point had been established in my mind, she lost a fair bit of credibility, and the large part of my sympathy for her.

I never got a really strong feeling from the rest of the characters either. They were characters to be certain, and brought with them color and a peculiar personality, but they seemed to flit in and out of the pages without leaving much of an impression on me. The only character who really did was Iorek Byrnison, because frankly a huge armored polar bear is simply awesome.

2. Setting - The settings in the first book are great. Terrific. Wonderful. Once we start shifting through worlds in books 2 and 3, I lose all sense of consistency aand once again stop caring very much about what happens and what goes on. I just felt a lack of consistency, like we were coming unanchored, that left my imagination adrift. I need to be somewhat more firmly anchored. I can't explain this feeling very well, since I enjoy A Song of Ice and Fire and Daenerys visits a lot of strange places as well, though they are all based on the same world.

3. Consistency - The tone in the books shifts so much, from action/adventure to thoughtful allegory, we shift from children to adults, from fantasy worlds to our own world, major things are introduced as each book successively comes along that are completely out of the blue and could, in no way, be guessed at by the prior books. We go from a plot to sever daemons from children, along with some mystery about Dust, to some strange city where people are killed for no reason I can rightly remember now, to Earth, then to the land of the dead where the rules are again different, then to... well, I have no actual idea where the book finished off. Those weird wheeled animals, and the final showdown with The Authority... I followed, but all the way along, I just didn't believe.

Well, that's my beef with the literary issues/story of the books.

Jayson Merryfield

quote:

---

I think they should be allowed to make decisions for thier own children, but not for mine.

---

That might be arguable in general (though it probably is not in many specific cases), but it is not practically supportable in the running of, say, a classroom or school library.

But--my tea kettle is whistling, so I'll move on.

quote:

---

That might be arguable in general (though it probably is not in many specific cases), but it is not practically supportable in the running of, say, a classroom or school library.

---

Luckily I run no schools nor create policy for any educational institutions. If I did, I am sure it would all go horribly wrong.

quote:

---

Luckily I run no schools nor create policy for any educational institutions. If I did, I am sure it would all go horribly wrong.

---

Let me be clear what my point of view is here before I continue. I am a Christian and I am a conservative. Unapologetically.

When it comes to banning books, I am strongly opposed to that. When you start banning stuff you don't agree with, who's to say someone else might ban something you hold dear (ie the Bible). So, be careful before you say its okay to ban something.

The author has every right to write what he wishes. If that's a strong anti-God book, fine. If the deity is upset, I'm sure he'll deal with the author as sees fit. I have the right not to read the book. I have the right not to allow my children to.

For the issue of school libraries, I don't really like banning books there either. I do think the parent should be the final authority on what their children read though. While they might not be able to stop everything they dislike from reaching their children, they should have a say in this. With technology the way it is, I think a school library should keep a database for each child letting the librarian know that a parent has restricted certain titles from their kids. Then a parent can have their wishes met but not infringe on anybody else's kids.

This subject is very relative to these forums under general discussions about writing. The point is to discuss without becoming rude. Not that I saw that in this thread but understand that there is going to be two or more camps.

There has been much talk in the last decade of the media taking responsibility for the things they say and publish. To be published is power and influence. To have your work made into a movie aimed at children is to greatly amplify that power and influence. And yet most of us would aspire to that point.

I’m going to be deliberately controversial now.

If you write a sitcom that promotes the gay lifestyle don’t kid yourself that it’s not going to affect society. Of course it is, indeed, that is in fact the writers goal. What if the show was aimed at a younger audience? Are you still in favor? What is the true affect, understanding or something beyond just understanding. If you write a sitcom that promotes the use of marijuana as harmless and something that should be better understood. What would be the real affect? Would you want your kids to watch it? Would you be upset if it were a cartoon? Would you say that, that media is irresponsible? What of a show for children that promotes the Islamic mindset? That instills in them the desire to find a spiritual leader in their later teens. Would you wonder if you had been a little too liberal when your 17-year-old son said he was heading out for Pakistan?

Young minds are easily influenced and if you don’t believe that, you’re an Idiot and your keyboard should be taken from you. Ok that was rude, but people who drink and drive have their license taken because they endanger a few. Should we abandon that law because we infringe on their rights to believe they can drink and drive responsibly - of course not, because we all see the immediate danger. A society without a moral compass is doomed. Are we really being narrow minded if we try to control what our children are being exposed to. Pullman is welcome to his opinion. He is welcome to publish books with those views. Should I invite him into my home to express his godless views to my children? Should he be allowed to promote those views in an indirect way to the children of parents who are unaware? Should parents really only react if the threat is immediate and obvious? Or should they be on the lookout for threats that are insidious.

Each to their own. (And if it's Earl Grey isn't that the only way?)

Completely off topic: I'm convinced Americans deliberately forgot how to make decent tea to make sure us Brits never came back ;-)

A little skimmed milk and two sugars, please.

He's not attacking religion per se, nor Christianity or Catholicism in particular. He's attacking the bad things that are done in religion's name - for example the Taliban hijacking Muslim beliefs, or the IRA hijacking Catholic beliefs, in both cases for evil ends.

I do agree that fiction should include a moral compass, and I think Pullman's is fine. He's attacking what evil men do in the name of religion, not religion itself.

I too didn't like the books and thank Jason for articulating why. (I was attracted by the icons of the amber spyglass and the alethiometer, nice old-fashioned fantastic machines, but got progressively more bored through books two and three and skimmed the end so fast I totally missed whomever got bumped off.)

There are those who claim that the media has no effect on the consumer, and yet millions of dollars would not be spent on advertising if this were true.

I submit that there is a continuum of effects and that people need ways to be knowledgeable about what the media offers and how the various offerings can affect them and those for whom they may be responsibile.

The thing is, people can't be knowledgeable about everything out there in the time available to them, so they have to rely on what THE LONG TAIL (by Chris Anderson, a book I recommend if you are interested in how availability is changing the way people follow their interests) calls "filters."

Filters include such things as the reviews on Amazon as well as the "people who have purchased the book you're interested in have also purchased these books" kinds of help offered on Amazon.

Filters also include such things as recommendations by friends or reviews from people you don't know whose opinions you respect (like OSC?).

Without filters, the vast amount of stuff that is available out there could overwhelm us. With filters, we can find what we really want.

So, while campaigns such as the one against the movie adaptation of THE GOLDEN COMPASS may be offensive to some, they serve as filters to others.

It then becomes up to the individual to consider whether or not each particular filter is well-researched, well-reasoned, and well-expressed as well as whether or not it is applicable to each individual's particular needs and interests.

I'm not sure that this forum would be best served by having this topic concentrate on the relative merits of the filter in question.

I submit that it might better be served by posters acting as filters themselves with regard to THE GOLDEN COMPASS.

quote:

---

Would you wonder if you had been a little too liberal when your 17-year-old son said he was heading out for Pakistan?

---

I guess you wouldn't if your starting position was that you were an Islamic fundamentalist. You would see it as good thing.

I see views and beliefs much like species. Some rise and succeed (for a while), some don't survive for long at all. Some belief systems feel it is important to force their beliefs on others by making people comply--killing and imprisoning those that don't. This is a semi-successful strategy and ensures short term survival, but it is no long-term strategy.

The world has always been a dangerous place. We had predators who ate us, plagues that decimated populations (and probably will), famines etc., and we are here today.
I am fairly certain that my children can survive if there are the wrong sort of books on the shelf.

If a society can't handle diverse views it won't survive anyway--and probably doesn't deserve to. After all diversity is what allows us, as the human race, to approach problems from different angles and overcome them--global warming and us all dying in the very near future to one side.

I was brought up with the phrase: It's got to be boiling!'

With tea and toast soldiers of course.

(1) I haven't read it, which limits my ability to discuss it, which hasn't stopped me from saying a good deal on Harry Potter or other things.

(2) I've heard tell the book (and maybe the upcoming movie) is anti-Christian and anti-Catholic in particular. Fine. "Everybody's entitled to their own opinion, that's why pencils have erasers." If the writer is clever enough, he can put over just about any sort of nonsense.

(3) On the notion of accepting and suppressing viewpoints---the notion that the so-called "ultra right" has difficulty with the concept is outright wrong. The left, of course, has no such problem, as long as the opinion is between moderate left and radical left---which is called balancing viewpoints.

(4) Funny how fast and how intense these discussions can spring up. Started yesterday, forty-one replies already.

I do not feel threatened by a fiction series that portrays ideas that are different than my own. In fact, I see that as educational. If not for its intended message, I can still learn and taking interest in the way they are portrayed. A new, and interesting light.

I trust myself to be discretionary, and I trust my ability to reason logically, to assess, accept, and deny validity in things that I read. I am therefore never threatened by anything that I read, because I trust myself. I do believe in God, but I have no interest in prescribing my beliefs to someone else. I therefore have absolutely no criticism for anyone who writes with an anti-god bias. Just as I don't criticize those who write with the opposite.

In fact, I might just find what they have to say more interesting.

That doesn't mean I blindly believe everything I read in print, less yet everything I subliminally download from whatever I read in print.

It just means that it is possible to be objective, and open minded, and respect everyone's ability to express their own ideas however they want to. That doesn't steal away our ability to reject their thinking, so why should we fear them?

As to water temperature, it depends significantly on the tea being steeped. Black tea, which has been bruised, oxidized, and fired should be brewed with boiling, bubbling, kettle whistling water.

HOWEVER: The flavor of some teas, such as Greens, Whites, and low-oxidized Oolongs (such as Monkey Picked Formosas) can be significantly damaged by using water that is too hot. Generally, the recommendation is that you use 200 degrees water for tender Oolongs, and 180 degree water for greens and whites. The reason is that green and white teas have been withered but not oxidized, so the flavor of the oils are released at lower temperatures.

Not being a tea grader, that is the extent of my knowledge, but I know from experience that green tea has a much deeper and more flavorful cup if brewed at slightly lower temps.

quote:

---

Completely off topic: I'm convinced Americans deliberately forgot how to make decent tea to make sure us Brits never came back ;-)

---

quote:

---

He's not attacking religion per se, nor Christianity or Catholicism in particular. He's attacking the bad things that are done in religion's name - for example the Taliban hijacking Muslim beliefs, or the IRA hijacking Catholic beliefs, in both cases for evil ends.

---

In fact, I intend to watch the movies. The books over all got really boring (a lot of time spent on stuff that never ended up being important). I've said several times that if I went and crossed out all the junk, I could make a very good read in one volume, rather than three.