Pullman takes on Lewis/Tolkien

Nikia

Nikia

New member
A friend of mine sent this to me and it is an article she found on a LOTR forum.
'His Dark Materials' Writer Philip Pullman Takes 'Narnia,' 'Lord Of The Rings' To Task
I've never read any of Pullman's work before and so I can't say much in regard to his work, but I did find this article of great interest. After reading it I doubt I could ever read any of his work because I can't read an author who I don't respect.
The 'Narnia' books are full of serious questions about religion: 'Which God should we worship? Is there a God at all? What happens when we die?' The questions are all there, but I don't like Lewis' answers.
Click to expand...
I feel Pullman is being too harsh on Lewis' beliefs. As though he is unable to write a captivating novel because his view is different from Pullman's on the subject of God.

On the other forum in which this discussion was first seen, I read a few comments regarding Pullman wanting Nicole Kidman to play Mrs. Coulter and that he had always had her in mind. That said it seems (from what I understand of his work) that he is willing to let his message get lost within special effects and fighting polar bears. His message (correct me if I am wrong) is to allow for a world where the church does not have the power it has (kidnapping children to stop Dust, correct?) Once again I have never read his work, but this is what I have been told and gathered from articles about the book and movie. I find it interesting that his overall message can be lost, whereas Lewis and Tolkien would rather have their message in a movie rather than lots of hubbub and sales to make some blockbuster.

I don't lose respect for Pullman because he has such negative view of religions, but because he rips authors like Tolkien and Lewis down for having positive views on the church. For a gifted author (which I assume he is if his work has gained such recognition) he seems to completely misunderstand the messages represented in Narnia and Middle-Earth.

I'd like to see what people think of Pullman's comments regarding Lewis and Tolkien's work in regards to his own.
 
We have discussed this elsewhere, if I can find the thread, I will merge them.

basically, I think something happened to Pullman in his younger years which really, badly hurt him, and whether it was associated with someone or somethign in the church, or whether he just felt betrayed and chose to blame God, I don't know.

Whatever happened, I feel that his indignation toward religion, and his anger toward good authors who have a relligious faith, is really a reflection of pain and bitterness in his own heart. I do not like what he says about CSL and JRRT, but I can can also sense how wounded he is, because who would lash out with such venom if there were not some terrible wound causing him great pain? The only way he can even handle it is to turn it into gall and bitterness ...

I feel sorry for him, and I hope some day Jesus will take away his pain. :(
 
I don't really know much about Pullman, but I agree that he's being a little harsh on C.S. Lewis. He is most certainly entitled to his own opinion, but he should express it respectfully.
 
Ach he is a.....ga! He makes this whole thing soooo confussing doesn't he? Lead it up to man/woman to twist the good and evil and make the good bad and the bad good. MAkes me want to...just ug.
 
Because the Calormene people, living under a hotter sun, have darker skins than the Narnian and Archenlandish humans who live in conditions like Northern Europe, Pullman grabbed at the chance to say that Mr. Lewis was claiming that having lighter skin MAKES people morally better. Pullman chose to overlook the fact that Mr. Lewis had portrayed an evil civilization that was itself like Northern Europeans, i.e. the Telmarines, BEFORE he ever got around to making up the Calormenes. The thing is that Pullman started at the end, knowing the conclusion he wanted to reach (Lewis is bad), and proceeded to make any available "evidence" suit his predetermined conclusion.
 
Yes, I do pray for salvation for Phillip Pullman, and for many others like him. Every time someone who has been spreading malicious lies comes to repentance and confesses the truth, it has a great beneficial effect in UN-deceiving people who were deceived. Take for example Norma McCorvey, the "Roe" of "Roe vs. Wade." When that court case occurred, Norma LIED UNDER OATH in order to paint the picture the abortionists wanted the Supreme Court to see. When she came to repentance, Norma publicly confessed that she had lied, showing the world the dishonest and immoral nature of the pro-death movement.
 
I've read the fist one, and the story itself was alright, but I never read any more of his books after that because of his religious ideas he portrays in the book.
 
Though I have not read the books clean through, I have looked at portions besides reading a very detailed synopsis. The very last pages of the last volume give an example of Pullman's dishonesty. His heroine Lyra is talking about Pullman's great cure-all idea, the "Republic of Heaven." (Am I the only one who hears echoes of "People's Democratic Socialist Republic" in that?) She speaks of the necessity of doing the hard work of being nice to other people...as if no one ever thought of being nice to people until the enlightenment of atheism came along.
 
That would explain why Christianity was preaching charity before anybody had any inklings of atheism, wouldn't it?

That's one of the things that amazes me about atheists. To quote another instance, in Christopher Paolini's book Eldest, his Elven race is atheistic (wonder why? Maybe because he himself is.) At any rate, the elf is telling his human apprentice of this set of beliefs (or unbeliefs, as they might be called), and the apprentice remarks that it would seem to be a dark world without any gods and such-like. The elf replies, "On the contrary, it is a better world, a world in which we can do the right thing because it is the right thing, not merely because some god says we should." I wonder how that didn't strike him as a little odd. How is it that all humans seem to have the same basic underlying 'gut sense' of Right and Wrong - the Natural Moral Law. Lewis also uses this as a basis for one of his arguments that there is a God.
 
Actually, some ancients had arrived at atheism before the Lord Jesus came down from Heaven to assume human form. This was because they had noticed that their mythical gods never DID anything. (Do you remember the line from "The Ten Commandments"?--"He can't hear you; he's just a piece of stone with the head of a bird.")

As for the argument that we believers only do good because we're afraid to annoy the God Who orders us to do good: that's the very reason why God holds back from showing more of Himself more blatantly and continuously! He stays in the background enough so that, if we ARE going to rebel, we can make ourselves believe it's justified or make ourselves believe we can get away with it. This preserves our free will.

Mr. Lewis was aware that atheists regarded the promise of Heaven as a "bribe" offered to us, completing the carrot-and-stick method. So Mr. Lewis explained, in "Mere Christianity" I think, that the true nature of Heaven is such that you CAN'T desire it in a morally bad way. As comparison, Mr. Lewis said that the love of poetry is not wickedly mercenary just because a person actually wants to READ the poetry!
 
One can disagree with the messages of an author and the criticisms he shows to others while still enjoying his works. I am that person. I vehemently disagree with Pullman's take on Lewis (I haven't heard of his criticisms of Tolkein, but they are probably similar), but I do like his work (well, mainly the first one--much more direct with Lyra in nearly every scene).

I will have to wait until I finish the final book to really answer the ultimatre message, but thanks to unnecessarily rude people, I know the spoilers at the end as they did not give any warning (mainly on the GC imdb--internet movie database-- message forums).

If one can read the Narnia books while disagreeing with or not minding the beliefs of Lewis or the messages of the books, than others should be able to do the same with the HDM books or any other kind of books.

"His message (correct me if I am wrong) is to allow for a world where the church does not have the power it has (kidnapping children to stop Dust, correct?)"

Nikia, his message is anti-dogmatic. The Chuirch in Lyra's world is extremely oppressive and controlling. The kidnapping of children is done not to stop Dust, but to see if they can keep children without sin by keeping the Dust from ever coming on them. They see Dust as proof of original sin as it is seemingly only attracted to adults.

MrBob
 
Olórin the Wise said:
That would explain why Christianity was preaching charity before anybody had any inklings of atheism, wouldn't it?

That's one of the things that amazes me about atheists. To quote another instance, in Christopher Paolini's book Eldest, his Elven race is atheistic (wonder why? Maybe because he himself is.) At any rate, the elf is telling his human apprentice of this set of beliefs (or unbeliefs, as they might be called), and the apprentice remarks that it would seem to be a dark world without any gods and such-like. The elf replies, "On the contrary, it is a better world, a world in which we can do the right thing because it is the right thing, not merely because some god says we should." I wonder how that didn't strike him as a little odd. How is it that all humans seem to have the same basic underlying 'gut sense' of Right and Wrong - the Natural Moral Law. Lewis also uses this as a basis for one of his arguments that there is a God.
Click to expand...
Paolini is influenced by Pullman. He admitted that Pullman is one of his favorite authors.
About Pullman himself, I think that he is an awful man and mediocre author. While his first book is OK, form the end of the second one trough the third one his hatred to religion is unthinkable. In the end, I think that he did this maybe because of personal reasons, but I guess that he wanted controversy - controversy sells.
 
Copperfox said:
Because the Calormene people, living under a hotter sun, have darker skins than the Narnian and Archenlandish humans who live in conditions like Northern Europe, Pullman grabbed at the chance to say that Mr. Lewis was claiming that having lighter skin MAKES people morally better. Pullman chose to overlook the fact that Mr. Lewis had portrayed an evil civilization that was itself like Northern Europeans, i.e. the Telmarines, BEFORE he ever got around to making up the Calormenes. The thing is that Pullman started at the end, knowing the conclusion he wanted to reach (Lewis is bad), and proceeded to make any available "evidence" suit his predetermined conclusion.
Click to expand...

I wonder that his criticism did not mention the "brown girls" in Lewis's Pilgrim's Regress. Clearly Lewis was alluding to the concept of the girls being a product of the southern (torrid, earthy, etc..) regions of man's adventures in meaning.

m
 
About controversy selling: this is a good place to repeat that NOT everything immoral in popular culture is motivated by money. There are many in that sphere who are driven by a warped sense of "mission" to fight against the truth. For instance, there are women who campaign tirelessly for so-called "reproductive rights," a phrase meaning exactly the opposite of the words, because they really want to justify THEIR abortions.
 
Back
Top