Opinions??
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).]
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited November 23, 2007).]
Thank god we haven't had to analyze this...it's my favorite book (and one of three that I've re-read).
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.
Let's see. Where is the closest *used* book store?
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*.
[This message has been edited by mfreivald (edited November 23, 2007).]
What? They do?
I think they should ban all forms of learning at school, that way everybody would be happy and we could rest assured that our children wouldn't be influenced by the wrong thing.
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.
Grant John
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.
Cheers,
Mark
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.
It's worth noting here that there will always be a struggle with competing morals. That's okay. The alternative is complete lack of any morality. But the liberal position is designed to assume they are correct and to stop all conversation. Not only does liberalism essentially impose its morality--it attempts to completely shut down any debate about the merits of competing morality. And, yet, it pretends like it is giving all views a shot. It is completely self-contradictory.
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?
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited November 23, 2007).]
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.
ciao,
Mark
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.
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited November 23, 2007).]
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.
Cheers,
Mark
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.
Cheers,
Mark
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.
Didn't do me any harm...now if you'll excuse me I have to go down to my cellar...
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.
Cheers,
Mark
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?
[This message has been edited by skadder (edited November 23, 2007).]
-- 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.)
Pat
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).]
[This message has been edited by Igwiz (edited November 23, 2007).]
All in favour?
I broke my rule about not getting into such discussions too :-(
And yes, tea's a good idea, preferably Assam.
Pat
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.
[This message has been edited by JFLewis (edited November 23, 2007).]
Cheers
[This message has been edited by Igwiz (edited November 23, 2007).]
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
[This message has been edited by Wolfe_boy (edited November 23, 2007).]
Thank you.
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.
Cheers--And Happy Thanksgiving,
Mark
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.
Shall I pour? One sugar, was it?
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.
I'm one of those barbaric Americans who drink my tea without sugar or cream. But that little dose of genuine humility has warmed it to the perfect temperature. 
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.
Unlike the woman from Georgia who tried to get Harry Potter banned because it was so evil. She even admitted that she'd never read them herself, but they were obviously evil. If she doesn't want her kids reading them, fine. But she can't force her will on others. Or rather, she shouldn't be able to.
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.
You turn on the news and see stories that make you wonder what is happening to the world. But you know what is happening to the world, because in fact …. you’re not an Idiot.
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.
Pat
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.)
More tea, anyone?
Pat
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.
And I hope this post isn't too long for everyone to read all the way through.
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.
Since this topic is also including a tea discussion as well as a bit of a Brit/Yank discussion, I'd like to know if what I've heard is correct.
I was brought up with the phrase: It's got to be boiling!'
Whereas, I have been informed, boiling water should not be poured over coffee.
IT IS A VERY IMPORTANT POINT.
With tea and toast soldiers of course.
Pat
(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.
(5) Until the discussion of how to prepare tea came up, it seemed the discussion was degenerating into one of those political and religious discussions that I thought we were supposed to avoid.
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?
[This message has been edited by Zero (edited November 23, 2007).]
(This post was beginning to resemble a car crash in slow motion.)
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.
[This message has been edited by Igwiz (edited November 23, 2007).]
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.
But I fell in love with the characters, especially Will and Lyra. And the cast that is coming together for this movie is pretty amazing.
quote:
Completely off topic: I'm convinced Americans deliberately forgot how to make decent tea to make sure us Brits never came back ;-)
Actually we developed our own method for making tea that involved a far superior amount of tea dunked into a large bowl (harbor) of cold (salt) water, thereby forever changing our tastes and opinion of Brits and tea. 
Now, the majority of us prefer iced tea (sweet tea)--though we have drifted away from the salt.
[This message has been edited by InarticulateBabbler (edited November 23, 2007).]
Some Christians find the movie and the books objectionable and don't want their children to see the movie or read the book. (Yes some of them think the movie is bad for society. Which is a discussion for another website not this one.)
This is a bad thing?
We have people expressing their opinions
quote:that these people are bad for expressing their opinions. There's a word for this but to use would violate the TOS for this website.
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
I've been away too long. This forum used to be about writing. What happened??????
[This message has been edited by teddyrux (edited November 23, 2007).]
I do believe religion and politics are very important subjects that are related to writing. While the arguing, fighting and long debating about certain issues might not be appropriate here, the idea that people have these beliefs (and for those who haven't notice, many have very strong opinions that they feel quite a bit about) and when we write our characters can have strong political and religious beliefs. They are motivational factors, and should never be overlooked because it might be..oh! Controversial!
I've met people who refuse to let their kids read harry potter because they use spells...and there are witches. Now, none of them have bothered to read the books themselves, since someone has told them how evil it is. I've asked the simple obvious question, "so why is it bad"? The reply is usually, well, they might act it out. So a kid picks up a stick says a few words...and nothing happens except for what their imagination provides. It just boggles the mind.
Since when did we forget to explain the difference between reality and fiction? I can read anything and take away from it what I desire, but if it is fiction, then I will know that it isn't real, it's made up. Lessons, words of wisdom that come across from the book can still be valid when the story itself is just that...a story.
I think something that I've found when it comes to fiction and religion, and atheism is a religion in this respect. Those who fear that something might disturb their beliefs, or the beliefs of their children, you have to wonder...could the beliefs be lacking? Some people are so vocal about what they believe, but their actions say otherwise.
Pay attention to religion, and the people who tend to be overzealous or inflexible. Many wrongs have been carried out in the name of religion, like 9/11 or the crusades....even Hitler had his own form of zealous beliefs that brought out a hatred so strong he brought about the murder of many jews.
Religion can be a motivational item behind any character, be it good or bad. If we all take each book that has a religious skew that might make us question our own beliefs, maybe we should question our beliefs until we find out whether we believe the right things. A book only has the value we give it.
http://www.philip-pullman.com/about_the_writing.asp
I would imagine he likes his tea dark, perhaps that is what he is referring to with 'His Dark Materials'. Earl grey, maybe.
I'm sure he also has the good taste to drink Assam tea.
Edit: You also have to admire a man who has a bandsaw in his office.
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited November 24, 2007).]
The terrible things that happen today with ever increasing frequency like schoolyard shootings or the rape and murder of children. These are the direct result of societal tolerance of pornography and gratuitous violence in video games and movies. No matter what we as a society tolerate we will always be pushed to tolerate more. NAMBLA is a real organization that will continue to push for greater recognition. There are numerous organizations that push to legalize the very drugs that most of us know first hand, destroy lives and families. The type of movies that our children have to choose from today would have been utterly unthinkable 20 years ago. Our teens are out watching movie after movie of humans being slowly tortured to death. And we say as an enlightened and progressive society that their young minds can handle it objectively. Its just entertainment! Is there anyone on the planet (who’s not making money off it) that actually believes that?
So forgive me but there will always be FANATICAL people who want to take away the moviemakers right to completely destroy the moral fabric of society just because they will get rich in the process. There will always be people who want to ban the video games that make teenage boys actually think that killing for real would probably be kind of cool. If you don’t believe that’s a reality you haven’t researched the subject. Most of the people who scream that all choices, harmful or not, should be available to society at large, would react quite badly if their mate came home with a stack of porno or began selecting a third partner for the bedroom. They seem to want it on the street but not in their own home.
Like it or not this is the world we live in. This is happening around you as we speak. Things ARE changing and have changed alarmingly recently. So pick a side cos someone is wrong. Religion is definitely on the downswing, there’s no disputing it. The churches are emptying out and religion and Christianity is off the school curriculum. We are having to rename everything so as not to impose religious ideology on those who wish have a clear conscience to engage in whatever activity should so please them. In Britain where I am from you are treated as a complete idiot if you have any kind of faith in God. Religion is a dirty word and God is for the weak minded. There is tremendous peer pressure to abandon any kind of faith. In Britain faith is the new gay and the old gay is now a badge of honor. Christians are moving into the closet.
Yeah, this is quite the rant. I’m done.
This thread was made possible by the writing of Mr. Pullman. A writer. A writer, writing into the same market as you. And making quite a stir doing so. It is relative to this forum. Arguing religion does not belong here but nobody has done that. At least not in this thread. If you think they did go back and read again. This thread is about the moral issues facing those who aspire to be successful writers. It is about whether it is appropriate to protest new lows such as subtly promoting atheism to children without actively alerting guardians that this is the nature of the material.
There has been plenty of business minded approaches to the art that utterly avoid the moral implications. Plenty of groups on the web that hate moral considerations altogether. I like this group because I know that KDW and OSC are neither greedy or self-indulgent and both take the privilege of standing in the public podium with humility and moral responsibility. Neither would publish just anything purely for personal profit. OSC is in fact quite well known for his moral commentaries on many issues. I started this thread simply because I felt it would be healthy to discuss the reality that what we write is not inconsequential. In truth if we meet with success it will affect other peoples lives in one way or another. Im sure all of you know numerous people who you know have been very affected by various mass media. Some adopting entire life philosophies that seem ridiculous to you. But then not everybody has family and stability.
JeanneT, mfreivald, your conversations are rapidly denigrating from a lively debate into a dichotomized animosity. I'm not saying who I think is right (you both bring valid positions to the table, because this is a personal issue, and all positions are valid).
So, how about y'all do one of two things: pistols at sunrise, or bury the hatchet.
HOWEVER, regardless of your decision, how 'bout you refrain from conducting it in this venue.
Me, I think I'm going to go have a lively debate about Inadvertent Plagiarism. I suggest the rest of us do the same.
Cheers
So, before the thread gets locked, I wanted to say it was cool how we were avoiding flames.
The tea thing was fascinating, I've never seen it work metaphorically before. As Skadder said, whenever there's a crisis the first thing the Brits do is reach for a kettle and tea pot. It's a neat technique of crisis and conflict management: Find something everyone has in common (tea) and through that get them talking and sharing. Also, it's a good mechanical ritual that gives one something distracting something to do.
And to Kathleen's question, it's a good theory (although mine's funnier). We Brits have boiled pretty much anything for centuries -- vegetables, steam pudding, drinking water (when invading someone else's country), wort (for beer), and of course marauders climbing castle walls. So we'd naturally boil coffee too, methinks.
So, I'll make tea. I think there are two Assams with milk and sugar, another without cream or sugar, a Darjeeling, several regular English Breakfast teas for those who didn't specify, a pot of warm not boiled coffee, one superior tea-crate dunked in a harbour and a Monkey Picked Formosa ...
Cue the evil robot monkeys?
Pat
*****
I haven't read the books---I did see them in the stores. But not before several volumes had come out. I looked at them, held them in my hands, looked at the cover art and read the jacket copy, pondering whether to buy. But I didn't.
First off, (1) these commercial attempts to duplicate the effect of Tolkien usually disappoint me. Plenty have been of interest, some form the leaf mold that makes my view on the world what it is...but, in general, they copy Tolkien (or Peake, or Grahame, or Lewis, or whoever), but don't live up to him.
There's also (2) the open-endedness of these commercial attempts. For all the later expansion material, The Lord of the Rings was complete---and these new books rarely are. And sometimes even death doesn't stop it.
But mainly, (3) it was the price. I think it was, like, four books at the time I looked at it. (I forget the details and could be in error here.) Four hardcovers at, oh, twenty-something a pop, add tax...we're talking over a hundred dollars for a series I wasn't sure I''d like, when there were other books to buy I thought I would (I probably drop more than, oh, two hundred a month on books.)
So the books stayed in the store and I read other things.
[Footnote: I don't know (or don't remember) when these moved into paperback editions---I think I saw the hardcovers first, but there may have been trade paper editions out at the time. I may even have looked at those.]
In the style of Wolfe_boy and some others, I am going to comment solely on the actual books themselves and not the topics of book banning, religion, atheism, etc.
I couldn't put the first book, The Golden Compass, down. I loved it. Fantastic book. I was really excited for the next book.
Unfortunately, I was sorely dissapointed. I finished The Sublte Knife, but I disliked it so much that I didn't even start the final book. And let me quickly emphasize, that it had nothing to do with the alleged anti-religious themes. No, there were other reasons.
Reading the 1st book was so much more enjoyable for me. I felt that Subtle Knife could have been written by a different person.
Three things attributed to this
1. As has been metioned before, the setting in the first book was FAR more exciting and enjoyable. WAY more interesting.
2. In book 1 the story only follows Lyra. In book two we follow three narratives, two of which bored me to tears and seemed to be totally unimportant to the plot. So the pacing was much slower.
3. Book 1 was just an exciting story. Book 2 felt it had an agenda. Pullman sacrificed alot of his fine storytelling to further it.
So, in sum, read The Golden Compass, skip the other two.
Or has the agenda -- regardless of how one feels about it, there is an agenda, I think -- subverted the story-telling?
Pat
quote:
(The smell of gasoline makes me nostalgic.)
I am doing this in hopes that the topic can move to discussing the books themselves and whether those here who have read them have found them worth reading and why.
The reason I am doing this instead of just locking the topic is that I am interested in what you all may have to say about the books themselves.
Please consider yourselves warned.
Edited to add that I am going to delete any posts that are not directly discussing either tea or Pullman's trilogy.
This is not the place for discussions of religion.
[This message has been edited by Kathleen Dalton Woodbury (edited November 25, 2007).]
So I'd like some rooibos (red bush) tea, please.
One of the reasons I haven't managed to "get around to" reading the second and third books is that people whose opinions I respect have said they didn't like them as much as the first one.
Maybe I'll get them read this coming year.
Also, I'm not terribly excited to see the movie because I was severely underwhelmed by Daniel Craig in the latest Bond movie.
There's the title.
I have just the ticket for you. I have found a wonderful tea and tisane blender from Boston who does a great rooibis. Our favorite (my wife and I) is their Key Largo blend. It is an organic green (not oxidized) rooibis, with dried papaya and mango pieces, peach pieces, orange and lemon peel, rose petals and marigold flowers.
Smells as good as it tastes.
Wups, sorry, I missed your preference Kathleen.
Pat
What I disliked was that it seemed a lot of story elements were being set up that never went anywhere. SPOILER WARNING: It seemed the lady doctor that hooked up with the tree people was being set up as a sort of tempter (ie Lucifer, but nicer). It also seemed Will and Lyra were going to be a sort of Adam and Eve and would be the parents to a new world, free of the religious persecutions of the world Lyra was from. At the end, none of that happened and Will and Lyra had to return to their worlds (kind of a parallel earth thing), and be separate. The reason given for this was really thin and it seemed the author wanted to do it even though everything else pointed elsewhere. Like maybe he got bitter at some point and decided to wreck the story.
And I found a source for it on the web. Thanks!
Now I have to read the others and see how they stack up.
Just so everyone knows, I have pity for anyone who doesn't prefer Assam. But you can't help your wrong-headed preference.
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited November 24, 2007).]
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited November 24, 2007).]
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited November 24, 2007).]
They not only show you the leaf and the brewed cup, they provide you with sufficient background on each individual tea they sell for you to be able to determine what best fits your palate. For those Assam fanatics, you can have smooth and smokey or sharp and distinct.
Enjoy...
quote:
I actually didn't view it as anti-religious though. I don't think that was his point at all. Take a look at the atrocities over the centuries that have been perpetrated in the name of organized religion
It was in the subsequent books where the author seems to go after God himself that annoyed me. Yes, there are many people who commit evil in the name of deity. It doesn't mean the deity is wrong, it just means humans are losers.
I like a sharp and distinct Assam myself. I'll be happy to proselytize for converts.
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited November 24, 2007).]
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited November 24, 2007).]
quote:
I haven't seen that he has some kind of anti-god agenda. But I'll be able to judge a lot better when I read the subsequent books. So far I am going on what he himself said and what I have read in reviews.
quote:
Hm. It's worth examining these things, I suppose, though I suspect you are being an opportunist after observing your modus operandi. Let's not use this as an opportunity for more histrionics, ay? You are notoriously bad with your facts now, and these are not exceptions.
On the subject, the second (and even more so) third books do go straight after "god." However, I'm not sure that's a bad thing.
-------------------------------------------
SEMI SPOILER
--------------------------------------------
God in Pullman's books is not truly God, he is a mortal being like any other, however he has taken it upon himself to rule over all the other beings. In fact the war isn't really against him, but his second in command...I have no problem with the idea that a false god should be overthrown.
--------------------------
END OF SPOILER
-------------------------
What I liked about the books is they showed how any institution may just be wrong...which is why you constantly have to check if what you're doing is truly "right."
The smell of diesel fuel always seems to bring that memory back, so I can totally understand. That smell, mixed with alfalfa hay, wheat dust and cow ... manure pretty much cover my childhood.
As to the books, I haven't read them. Just bought the whole set second hand. Tried to get into the first of them, and its first 13 didn't hook me. Guess I might have to try harder, but maybe not...
In either case, regarding the rest of the raging debate, I'm a "whatever gets you through the night" kinda guy. Not what gets everybody else through the night, or what you think should get them through the night 'cause it feels so good to you, just what gets YOU through the night. And that's generally the problem I have with these types of debates. It's so personal, so tangible, so close to the center of the chest, that it's very hard to separate the debate from the feelings.
"So me," he says, returning to the pleasantries of reminiscence, "I'm happy to stay with the tea and the gasoline."
[This message has been edited by Igwiz (edited November 25, 2007).]
I'm going to go back and change my warning to say that I'm deleting everything that isn't directly about Pullman's trilogy (or tea).
As others have pointed out, Jeanne T and mfreivald, if you want to keep arguing, whatever the points are you choose to argue about, please take it to email.
Either that, or ignore each other.
Thank you.
[This message has been edited by Kathleen Dalton Woodbury (edited November 25, 2007).]
I also think the Narnia books had an agenda to some degree. Except for the Horse and his Boy. I can't figure the symbolism behind that one. Anyone know?
PS: the millions of Jews were killed because of racism and political reasons.
As for my PS . . . well, maybe your right. I apologize.
It's just, I was a History major in college and I felt compelled to correct the slight historical inacuracy.
I thought the way Pullman dealt with the phenomenon of dark matter was cool.
What was really interesting about the series was that it started out on a parallel earth. Lyra's world of England has the same geography, but a different world. Each person has a daemon (basically a part of one's soul, but in this world it manifests as an animal). Her world is governed more by magic and spirits, yet The Church (not mentioned as any specific church) does maintain great power over how the world runs and pissing it off is a bad thing.
In the second novel, most of the events take place in our world. The third novel has to do with Lyra's father's attempt at restarting the human race on an empty earth where they would be free from tyranny. If you can read the books and suspend yourself from the idea that Pullman may or may not be attacking religion (which I can do), then the read is quite good. If you tell yourself that The Church is not any particular church, then you realize that The Church, as painted in the novels, is not a good thing, and the rebellion from it is justified. If you tell yourself that the 'god' and the 'angels' are not actual deity or angelic beings, and simply fantastic creatures from another world, then it takes some of the controversy out.
I honestly don't know what Pullman's goal was. I'm not in his head. To me, it did seem to attack religion in general and God specifically. But if you can look past that and look at the merits of the books, then they aren't half bad. I still think a lot could have been cut, which would have greatly helped the pacing, and I think the end could have been better, but the story was good and the characters were wonderful.
I agree that of the first one I thought the best part was the characterization. I really wish I had already read the others. I have used copies on hold at my favorite bookstore and will pick them up tomorrow. It is amusing, and Rowling pointed this out as well, that this kind of controversy inevitably increases book sales.
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited November 26, 2007).]
quote:
I'm deleting everything that isn't directly about Pullman's trilogy (or tea).
I couldn't think of a better fate for them, Kathleen. Thank you. I only wish it had come sooner.
Shouldn't there be a protocol of some kind
Note from Kathleen: I have deleted the rest.
There is protocol for posting on the Hatrack River Writers Workshop. It is on the registration
page
and on the introduction page
This is a forum for writing, not arguing for or against various takes on history or politics or religion, and so on.
The above two pages should be protocol enough.
[This message has been edited by Kathleen Dalton Woodbury (edited November 26, 2007).]
GRIM REAPER: Shut up! Shut up, you American. You always talk, you Americans. You talk and you talk and say 'let me tell you something' and 'I just wanna say this'. Well, you're dead now, so shut up!
Robert Nowall, what do you mean by "commercial attempts to duplicate the effect of Tolkien"?
<spoiler>
I read all three books. Like some other posters, I was enraptured by the first book. And then, it all went down hill from there. Somehow the focus on Lyra's attraction to her friend Will was the downfall for me. It felt forced and unbelievable to me, and had me rolling my eyes and groaning. The ending felt weak to me, though I can't specifically remember what the ending was.
</spoiler>
However, I love the dark flavor of the books, and his setting, and much of what Lyra does. And I love many of his concepts--the subtle knife, that sort of thing.
As for tea, I prefer Lapsang Souchong, though I have been known to enjoy a cup of Assam, Keemum, or Sencha. (Now the Japanese and tea, there's a whole 'nother forum!)
quote:
Robert Nowall, what do you mean by "commercial attempts to duplicate the effect of Tolkien"?
Those books that fall into the commercial publishing category of "fantasy," that take elements of Tolkien's work, but rarely as effectively. Tolkien was a painstakingly thorough writer who brought a vast scholarship in language and literature to bear on what he wrote. This gave Tolkien's works depth and breadth on a virtually unprecedented scale.
Those who followed in Tolkien's footsteps wrote books that lacked this breadth and depth. Compared to Tolkien, the likes of Terry Brooks or Stephen Donaldson or Barbara Hambly or Katherine Kerr all the way down to any of the Dungeons and Dragons titles are just the publishing version of yard goods. This "Golden Compass" may be a good example---I haven't read it and can't discuss details, but the comments suggest it's another "heir of Tolkien."
I have fondness for some of these works. (I have a lot of affection for Niel Hancock and his "Circle of Light" four-book set---it came out in 1976, just as the fantasy genre was establishing itself.) But most of them? Well, to lift an analogy I heard the other day, "When you've had turkey, it's hard to go to tripe." Compared to Tolkien, they're tripe.
Also the recent movie ads bring in a few more Tolkien-esque things.
Since you've read it, you'd definitely know better than I. It may still be worth a shot. I may take it someday, but not right now.
Both stories are about an epic struggle of good against evil. Good is an underdog, whereas evil appears all-powerful. Evil is aligned with some truly awful monsters. The core story is a long journey with many false turns and challenges along the way. There are encounters in strange and faraway lands with exotic or terrifying creatures, some helpful, some not, and their intentions aren't always immediately apparent. Nice father figures get bumped off. When there's love interest it's peripheral to the story and one wonders why it's there.
Sure, that's a pattern for many fantasy stories. For me, Tolkien did it so well (though a bit long-winded in places) it's hard to follow.
In SF there are similar icons. For example, it's almost impossible to do robots after Asimov and Heinlein defined permissive futuristic societies in "Time Enough for Love".
Pat
That's like saying Heinlein set his stories in the future, so anyone who sets a SF story in the future is ripping him off.
In fact, Pullman's works are not in the least "Tolkienesque" in my opinon. He used none of the trope that are associated with that description.
Edit:
quote:All good things whether in SF or fantasy and hardly unique to epic fantasy NOR extremely Tolkienesque. I don't remember a single father figure getting "bumped off" in LotR.
There are encounters in strange and faraway lands with exotic or terrifying creatures, some helpful, some not, and their intentions aren't always immediately apparent. Nice father figures get bumped off. When there's love interest it's peripheral to the story...
So now we can only set a fantasy OR SF in downtown Trenton, NY for fear of being accused of being "Tolkienesque?" Heaven help us if we have an exotic creature? Love interests have to be centrail to the story? I seriously object to that since I DON'T write romances. I beg your pardon.
I'll choose to be "Tolkienesque" if those are my choices.
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited November 26, 2007).]
Maybe our preoccupation with these themes is the result of Tolkien's influence. I think that's changing.
Edit: And our preoccupation with this journey goes back a few thousand years. We can twink it and fool with it all we want to. It is THE monomyth and we can't get away from it. As an example, my hero is invariably female. But when you go down to the bare bones it's still the hero's journey. Your journey might be over entire nations or within one city. The evil will vary. The monsters you face may be Grendel, orcs or just humans. But that doesn't change it and it is by no means limited to speculative fiction.
Ok--lecture over.
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited November 26, 2007).]
Oh, but I will say this: <b>tell a good story.</b> Do whatever it takes to tell a good story.
I don't think The Golden Compass was like LOTR at all...Besides, possibly, the use of some golden item...
That's a bit like saying, "when I think of light bulbs, I don't think Edison."
Nothing to say about the Golden Compass, other than to note my passing disbelief that this thread somehow managed to avoid lockdown.
Guess my mind doesn't work the same as everyone elses'...
I was thinking of Gandalf. Poetic license?
I agree my attitude towards epic fantasy is unreasonable. It's a question of taste. Or perhaps in my case, lack thereof.
Pat
(When I think of light bulbs, I have to think of Edison...in the county I live in, he's kind of a tourist attraction and a cottage industry.)
Edit: Sorry about the atheist thing. It's all a plot, of course. We're putting something in the popcorn.
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited December 08, 2007).]
Totally blew the ending, and seemed to emphasize the wrong things, but it was still pretty good. The actors and voices were really well done.
I have never read the book, so I didn't know what to expect when I saw the movie last night. I thought it was pretty bad. Sure, a lot of talented people were involved, namely the digital artists, the acting was usually pretty good, can't say the same for the score... But, the main problem was that the story kept blipping forward from random point to random point without taking any time to make me care about anything. There was always something going on, but it didn't ever connect very well to what was going on five minutes ago. A lot of characters were just dropped and forgotten, like the James Bond fellow. And the "surprise" darth vader twist "I'm your mother" could be spotted a thousand miles away. In fact, I managed to guess this "twist" the very first scene the golden lady was in.
I think there is potential for very interesting fiction, but the film version simply jumped around randomly and made the whole experience entirely incoherent. With a pretty random battle involving whole armies that appeared out of nowhere and meant nothing--to top things off, and then an extremely inconclusive ending to boot.
Not very impressed. It's a notch above Eragon, certainly. But well below Narnia, Harry Potter, and the Lord of the Rings.
(a 4 out of 10.)