posted
I really liked these books but I totally missed the whole theological thing. But this doesn't surprise me much. I often miss alot of the underlying themes the first time I read a book and I've only read these once. I get too wrapped up in the general story and the characters to pay much attention to what it all "means" This is wy I usually read a lot of books multiple times. The same thing with Martins boks to a lesser degre. I flew through them because I loved the action and what each of the characters were doing. When I finally finished I read the spoilers thread and realized I had missed some rather obvious details. But I just register that up to good story telling. I put Pullman in this catagory. He tells a great story and a lot of people will just really enjoy the story.
Posts: 1294 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This thread is making me want to reread The Amber Spyglass. I love the images in that book, but sometimes the language was a bit thick. But first I've got to read- American Gods Someone to Love Pictures in the Dark and the book about being Geeky someone mentioned in another thread.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gaiman rocks. He has a great way with words I love that cracks me up sometimes. American Gods is a very male kind of a book. Sandman is delightfully disturbing and Neverwhere was just awesome. *loves his books* *reads constantly even while trying to cook*
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
My problem is my short attention span. It really is a problem. One of the reasons I have read OSC is that he is one of the few authors who can reel me in and hold me there. It is dangerous, because I will read at the expense of other important parts of my life. But too often with other authors I get "stuck" where I loose my desire to continue. It is a bad habit of mine.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I read one of his Sandman graphic stories (it was illustrated in watercolors, not done as a comic) about a monk, a fox, and the king of dreams. It was a retelling of a fairy tale (I can't remember if it was Chinese or Japanese). I was utterly blown away.
"He will learn what it means to take something from a fox."
posted
For bev's information, I'll say I'm LDS. I read the books as they came out. I loved the first one, liked the second one a lot (I think it has some very strong points, doesn't suffer from being the middle volume nearly as much as usual), and was really, really looking forward to the last one.
And I hated it. I mean, I haven't read the trilogy since, and up till then, I'd read the first one about 4 times. I felt that he let his personal dislike of religion ruin the story, and it was confusing and muddled as well. I felt that he let the often-awful actions done in the name of religion get mixed up with the idea of religion, if that makes any sense. Like Zalmoxis, I was disappointed at the blah 'philosophy' at the end.
I have a friend who said he didn't finish the books because he felt very strongly that there was a very dark core to them, which made him unhappy. (He is not particularly religious.)
That said, I think you should read them, bev. The first two are great, and at least you'll know what's there. Or don't read them; it's up to you. You could always leave the last one out. Someday I'll pick them up again, but I doubt that I'll ever read the last one again, which is a shame as I have a lovely hardback copy in my bookshelf.
Posts: 335 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I had heard these books denounced before, and in such terms that I wasn't really interested in reading them. Now I'm reconsidering.
My relationship with anti-religious or anti-Christian books (both fiction and non) is quite conflicted; they tend to strike me in three distinct ways.
There are those in which I find amused, but strained, agreement--usually taking positions that I agree with about some particular church but clearly meaning to take on Christianity as a whole. Some authors, for instance, take on the hierarchial priesthood found in the Catholic church and apparently imagine every church is like this. I'm no fan of hierarchies either, but the author speaks in such terms that it's clear they were aiming at me too and missed. Job: A Comedy of Justice struck me this way, Heinlein clearly knew not all churches were the same, as he incorporates doctrines from a wide variety of them--but somehow he missed hitting anything I agreed with.
There are a few that I find myself in wholehearted agreement with, usually attacking some conception of God that I can't understand how anyone could believe in. Unfair or not, I have been known to compare the Calvinist concept of God to Big Brother (of 1984) and to Satan; that's really how it appears to me. An author writing exclusively to this concept (even if he thinks it represents all Christians) will be hard-pressed to offend me. I can't recall any such book at the moment. Armageddon struck this nerve in the opposite way, though; having justified the whole series of divine judgements as meant to bring people to repentance, it then depicted characters desperately trying to repent but not allowed to because they had waited too long. (That's the Left Behind book, not the asteroid movie.)
And then there's the other side, the one that's purely repugnant even if the story is interesting. "Deathbird" (by, I think, Poul Anderson) struck me this way, portraying God as an insane alien with no redeeming qualities. In this case, the hero's euthanasia of the planet was a contributing factor--the author seemed to be portraying death purely as release and "God" as evil for refusing to give it.
I have no idea how HDM will affect me...so perhaps I should give it a shot.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:American Gods is a very male kind of a book.
That's an intriguing observation Syn--I honestly don't know what it means. What makes is a male book? Don't worry about spoilers on my account--I've read it already, and loved it.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:My problem is my short attention span. It really is a problem. One of the reasons I have read OSC is that he is one of the few authors who can reel me in and hold me there.
Bev, have you read any of Octavia Butler's work? I was struck by how completely she drew me into her books (well, the good ones, anyway ). I think that her single best book is probably Wild Seed (which, interestingly enough, is the fascinating prequal to a fairly dull series. It was written much later than the rest of the Patternmaster book, and you can really see how much she's grown as an author between the writing of the series and the prequal). Her Dawn, and the rest of the Xenogenesis trilogy that it begins, is incredibly involving as well. Best drawn alien race in SF, I'm convinced.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
I have to admit I didn't like it. I kept waiting for the protagonist to DO something. Even the idea of modern pagan gods wasn't realized well enough for me, and Gaiman failed to make me care for anyone.
Posts: 438 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
Gaiman described it like that. It's about a bunch of guys driving around on a journey and they seem to *ahem* whip it out and pee a lot all through it. But, the best and strongest character in the book is female. Shadow seems more like... well, a Shadow, just doing what he is told... Until the Vigil. I love the Vigil.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Bev, have you read any of Octavia Butler's work?
No, I know nothing of Octavia Butler. Maybe I should give her a try. My sister is so much more wide-read than I, ever since I can remember she has contributed to a long list of "books I should read someday". I will ask her if she has read Butler.
Dangermom, Dagonee, and Dana, thank you in particular for your thoughts on the books. I think there are books out there that I consider "evil" and I am trying to figure out if this series would fall under that category. There are some books that introduce ideas contrary to my beliefs and I just roll my eyes at them because of how contrived or misguided they seem ot me, or at best say, "hmmm, interesting." There are others, though, that just have a "dark feel" to them as you described. I am not interested in reading such books in that I believe my time is better spent reading something else that will contribute to who I want to be.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think there are books out there that I consider "evil" and I am trying to figure out if this series would fall under that category.
I agree some are, but I wouldn't call this one evil. It's up front - I think a book has to be seductive in some way to be evil, not just express evil ideas.
posted
I personally found C.S. Lewis' Perlandria to have a bit of an evil feel to me, which is surprising considering my hearty agreement with most of his other writings. It has to do with a fundamental difference in view of "the fall". I also was creeped out by some aspects of his That Hiddeous Strength. Certainly I feel that certain aspects to Pierce Anthony's writings had a negative effect on me growing up, to the point where I made a conscious decision to stop reading his books.
I am trying to think of a book I have read that I would consider evil.... Nothing specific comes to mind. It was more of a hypothetical sentiment. Remember, I am not terribly well-read, especially for a Hatracker. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, that is interesting. I think one of the reasons for my concern is that my sister found it to be seductive. She felt it painted a beautiful view of certain things she found repugnant--like the view on an afterlife or lack thereof.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that you'll fall in love with Butler's work bev. I don't think that I'd start with her newest novels, the Parable series (Parable of the Sower and Parable of the Talents though. Those two are very, very well written, but were a little painful for me to read. If you like short stories, you can get a fairly good tast of Butler with Blood Child, which is a (fairly slender) collection of all of her published short fiction.
Anybody know what she's working on these days? Parable of the Talents came out a long time ago, and I can't seem to find anything online to suggest what she's working on.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe I was too put off by the story to be seduced by it. Although it's the little changes that are usually seductive - this was so obviously not in agreement with my own beliefs that I just accepted that up front.
posted
Synesthesia, I got that feeling from the previous posts where you mentioned the series. I thought to myself, this trilogy is *really* important to her. Perhaps so much that it has helped her to form and solidify some of her deepest ideas. I do get the feeling that this work has been very influential. That gives me some pause.
Dag, yeah, it is true that LDS and Catholic views of the Fall are pretty different. I might even add most of Christianity with the Catholics. LDS perspective is that the Fall was necessary to progression. It seems much of Christiandom wishes the Fall never happened. Perlandria totally supports the latter idea.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's pretty much the case, Bev...I can't think of any other church that agrees with you. (Despite it being suggested in one of my early church classes that if not for the Fall it would just be Adam and Eve still.)
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
In fact, it takes pretty hard literary swipes at the progression idea, too, since that's Weston's main argument for breaking the commandment. I don't know how closely his version matched the LDS teachings, so take this as a very general statement.
posted
It was funny because the whole time I was reading it I was thinking, Dude. Satan is right. Listen to him! Heh.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, I think Lewis was aiming more at secular concepts of progression, or quasi-mystical ones like that of Teilhard de Chardin--what's sometimes called "transhumanism" nowadays. It hadn't occurred to me to associate Perelandra with LDS teachings on the subject. I have read somewhere that the Space Trilogy was aimed primarily at a novel called First and Last Men, but can tell you little about it.
And for the record, in Out of the Silent Planet, I had my own moment of sympathy for the devil..."You say Maleldil let all go dead. Me like Bent One better. He fight, jump, live! Not all talkee-talkee."
posted
Of course, it could be interpreted that the Fall on earth was necessary for progression, but the next needed progression is a race that passes the test.
Just rampant speculation, not something I believe at all.
posted
Warning: I'm going to be absolutely Mormon-centric here ---->
The Mormon version of the Fall and what it is about and leads to and why it was a 'good' thing is incredibly more interesting than Pullman's view of the Fall -- probably because his is developed in reaction to a mainstream Christian (and as synth and dag note -- Calvinist) perspective.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I enjoyed it too...at the moment, however, what I can remember of it seems "off" somehow. Perhaps it's a matter of my own beliefs not quite meshing with Lewis' either.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Of course, it could be interpreted that the Fall on earth was necessary for progression, but the next needed progression is a race that passes the test.
I would change "race" to "individuals". The LDS view our progression as being a sort of sifting process, the end state determined by how each individual deals with their specific life, all advantages and disadvantages taken into account and a full understanding of spiritual matters being necessary before a proper judgement can be made. Said understanding can come in this life or the next, being better if it comes in this life.
Edit: Somehow I missed ever reading Out of the Silent Planet. I need to read it one of these days.
Edit2: Dag, I just went back and reread your post and realized you were saying something totally different than I thought you were saying. If I understand you, I don't think that is what C.S. Lewis was trying to say. I think he was trying to set up a speculative Paradise Lost story where Adam and Eve choose not to fall and present the idea of how great it would have been if our Adam and Eve had made that choice. I personally reject this sentiment.
posted
That's definitely what he was trying to say. I was just pointing out that it's possible to interpret it the other way, depending on how much you think author's intent matters in literary criticisim.
posted
Interesting. I can see room for that interpretation, even if it was not his intent.
Back to the Dark Materials series, even if I find the book utterly unseductive and a very entertaining read, if the premise it is based on is not one that fits my own paradigm, I will ultimately find the series unsatisfying in it's resolution. It reminds me of all the contrived romance movies with sappy happy endings that I can't stand. If it is too contrived to sell me on the story, I will ultimately be left unsatisfied. For instance, I found "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" unsatisfying while I found "Shakespear in Love" to be one of the best romances I had ever encountered.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Noemon -- I liked the first 2 books the best, the 3rd one less. I liked the first one just a bit better, but still thought the 2nd one was great -- introduces new characters, kills off old ones, develops and deepens the plot, new settings... basically, it kept things moving, where sometimes a middle book will stagnate... probably my only annoyance with the 2nd book was that Lyra's suddenly passive in the early part of the book, letting Will do much of the thinking... she gets her spunk back later, but that early passivity seemed out of character.
Posts: 2911 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pullman's introduction of intense religious warfare in the third book didn't throw me-- but Mary's playing the part of the serpent to Will and Lyra's Adam and Eve certainly did.
If the book has any moral failings, it's germination of the idea that it's okay for children as young as Lyra and Will to be experimenting sexually, which is what may be implied by what is written.
That was my reaction upon reading the book for the first time.
I listened to it about a year and a half later, and got the impression that Lyra and Will were much older than I had thought; but if I recall, Lyra was ~10 or so when she set out after Roger; and Will wasn't much older when he went through the window to Citta Gazze. Still, way too young to be acting out the parts of Adam and Eve.
The whole bit about the Authority being wicked and the rebellious angels being in the right-- it's been done before. Even Milton (heck, Pullman drew the title of the stories from Paradise Lost) made the devil attractive.
Anyway, I thouroughly enjoyed the books, except for that one piece. Which, though a 'sexual awakening' is hinted at, I'm not willing to blow it out of proportion-- it's as easy to say that Pullman is corrupting childood, as to say that Lyra and Will's relationship was innocent.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
