A Review of His Dark Materials

I first was introduced to the world of His Dark Materials when the buzz about The Golden Compass movie started. I went to see the movie in December and it seemed to be a pretty interesting fantasy world...worth exploring. I also felt the need to have some first-hand knowledge about the series after the controversy it aroused within the conservative community. I was invited to a Facebook group boycotting The Golden Compass because it was promoting Pullman's "atheist agenda" and because, according to them, the two main character children actually "killed God" in the final book. I dislike this sort of boycotting because I think people have a right to see and read what they want (and we don't all agree on these things) and even if something is (what I consider) culturally bad, this only draws more attention to it, so what's the point? Also, the statement about "killing God" seemed temptingly oversimplified, and I was curious to see whether it was an event in the novel as the majority of readers would understand it, or if (as I suspected), it was an oversimplification or blatent misreading of an event in the novel. So...the following is my review. You are forewarned that it contains what may be considered spoilers....

His Dark Materials tells the tale of Lyra Belacqua, a girl of prophecy and stubborn determination. Lyra and her daemon, Pantalaimon, journey to their north and then to a series of other worlds, which are, to a lesser or greater degree, parallel. For those not indoctrinated, a daemon is a physical manifestation of one's soul that is visible in some worlds as an animal embodying the qualities of a person; the daemon (pronounced "demon", which took some getting used to in the movie, considering its connotations) can move freely and speak.

The daemon, in fact, is a fascinating concept. (Hey, I'd like to have one.) One character, a former nun, contemplates the writings of St. Paul about body, soul, and spirit. It had never really occurred to me to distinguish between soul and spirit, but in this series they are definitely distinct. The body is easy to distinguish, the daemon is the soul, which in some ways represents the character, and yet there is something else (presumably the spirit) which remains after death, separate from the daemon. Spirit - perhaps the mind? Memories? Consciousness? (Though the latter is in some way related to the daemon) It's made me think about exactly what I am made of and how it goes together.

As to the allegations of being atheist and anti-church, a more accurate view would be that the books are anti-authoritarianism or anti-theocracy. Yes, there are numerous references to "the church", but the church there has almost no resemblance to the church that I know. It does strongly resemble the church of the middle ages, in which people were expected to yield to the will of the church without choices or being able to be knowledgeable. I find myself quite in agreement with the premise that power should not be given absolutely. Now, to the atheist agenda, the books certainly aren't "atheist", being that God exists in the book, as well as other spirits. I don't think that they are promoting an atheist agenda, though I do believe that they are advancing a sort of humanist agenda in the same way that C.S. Lewis used in The Chronicals of Narnia. While there is a strong allegory that many Christians note, Lewis wrote that he didn't intend the books as a theological tool or to convert children, but to make them familiar with the kind of stories of Christian faith, ideas that someday they might recognize in the church and feel a familiar resonance with. His Dark Materials could perform a similar function in that children may first encounter a world where humans have the most power.

As to the allegation on the Facebook group about the protagonists "killing God", my suspicions were confirmed. If you take a particular meaning of the words and are extremely literal, it is possible to see that as true, but it is really a gross misrepresentation. First, the "God" in the book does not bear any resemblance to the God I believe in. He was powerful and dominating, but has become old and very frail. The children see him trapped in a crystal case which was to protect him from the elements. Without realizing who or what he is, or what will happen when they free him, they set him loose from the case because he looks in pain inside. The wind then more or less blows him away into dust because of his advanced age. Now, they did kill him in that they performed an action that caused his death, but I'd say it's a stretch when it wasn't intended to kill him but was out of compassion.

There were some moments when the book spoke of God, or the church, that made me a little uncomfortable, as I would call it, squirmy. Then I questioned myself whether it made me more or less "squirmy" than listening to rhetoric from ultra-conservative Christian groups with whom I disagree. In truth it was an equal, or perhaps lower discomfort reading the books than trying to deal with ideas I think are destructive from a group that is, by name at least, associated with me.

In the end, the beauty and complexity of the worlds Pullman created kept me reading, even when there was some discomfort. I would recommend these books to anyone who enjoys fantasy and can handle a little ambiguity.

His Dark Materials consist of the books The Golden Compass, The Subtle Knife, and The Amber Spyglass by Philip Pullman.

Why I Support Barack Obama

...which is surprising based on how strongly I feel about women taking leadership positions and being equally included. I remember being angry as a kid realizing that I often saw Jeopardy with three male contestants but never with three female contestants. (That's changed.)

I've been hearing a lot recently about how older voters seem to support Hillary more and younger voters gravitate toward Barack. An NPR piece I heard recently gave two reasons that make sense to me:
1. Older feminists and members of the Civil Rights movement feel an affinity toward Hillary because she was part of those movements, while we as younger voters take that for granted.
2. Younger voters are attracted to Barack's message of hope. That is certainly the strongest pull for me. We've grown up tired of seeing older people perpetuating their ideas of racism, sexism, homophobia, classism, and American imperialism. We'd like to see something better. (Now, I'm not saying everyone over 30 is a bigot, mind you, but, at least as my generation perceives it, the majority of people who think that way are older than us. There are plenty of people who actually grow in wisdom as they age, and I'm grateful to those around me that teach me about life, but don't we all know someone 60 years old who thought he knew everything there was to know at 20, and has changed not at all for the last 40 years?)

However, this doesn't address my largest concern with Hillary Clinton becoming president. I was conflicted about my feelings between the two at first until I read an article in Newsweek that pointed out that the Bushes and the Clintons have occupied the White House for 20 years straight now, and Hillary becoming president would continue to keep the power within only 2 families. Now if you're older, it might be easier to overlook, but think of how long 20 years seems to a 20-something like me. I was born in the Reagan administration, but the first election and first president I remember is George H.W. Bush, who was elected when I was 6. If Hillary is elected president that means when I am 31 (or 35 if she gets 2 terms), my entire living memory would be of only 2 families in power. That's possibly a third of my lifetime. It smacks of dynasty and is distasteful to me, however much I like some of Hillary's ideas, particularly health care. So, while I would probably vote for her in 10 or 15 years, if Indiana has any say in the matter (which it probably won't), I'm supporting Obama.

An incidental concern I've heard some mention is that Hillary is too polarizing to the opposition. Meaning that if she was the nominee, more conservatives would come out to vote, just to vote against her because they don't like her. I think there is some truth to that, but it wouldn't make me choose someone over her if that were the only concern I had. Why? Because while I think that few hard-line conservatives would admit it (because it would mostly make them unpopular), it's not really a problem with Hillary that they have. It's a problem with women. Yeah, they dislike her personality, but it's going to be similar to the personality of any woman that can go that far in politics. I suspect that what they dislike is how vocal she is, how strong she is, how she speaks her opinion, which is not what they think a woman should be. So while they (mostly) say that they support having women in leadership, they don't like any of the women capable of doing that.

That's my opinion, to have it on record before this all shakes out. Super Tuesday is in two days, and it seems quite likely that there will be a clear front runner after that. But...who knows?