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.

Children and Indoctrination

I recently saw a bumper sticker that read, "Smile! You could have been aborted!" Rather than smile, though, I was horrified. It just didn't seem funny to joke about, even to make a point. Some weeks before that, I was even more horrified to see some protesters on the street (not that it matters, but it was by the gas station out at 5 points on Lincoln) holding anti-abortion signs...no, that's not the horrifying part....that was when I saw several children of mixed ages, but all under the age of ten, holding very large, very graphic photos of what was presumably aborted fetuses.

Then today I watched Jesus Camp, which was an interesting experience to say the least. I was very disturbed by what appeared as very intense and emotional indoctrination to me. It's confusing, though, because I'm not sure exactly where the line is between teaching values and indoctrination. I know that what I saw had crossed it, but how far can or should you go? I don't want to raise totally confused kids either...or whatever happens when you don't even try to teach your own values.

I think what really disturbs me is seeing people using or even mis-using kids to promote their own political ideals, e.g. end abortion. This is perhaps a bad, or confusing, example for me because I'm in the somewhat awkward, but not that rare (I'm learning), position of being morally against abortion in the majority of cases (particularly as birth control) but politically pro-choice, mostly due to the deleterious effects on women that restrictions to abortion cause. However, I believe my objections are at least consistent with my beliefs. I am disturbed that people would subject their children to graphic, bloody pictures, especially when their aim is just to use their kids as props to bandy a political agenda. To compare this to something more "liberal" that I believe in...I'm against this war that's happening, and might even protest at some point, but I wouldn't even consider having my young children look at photos of soldiers' corpses, much less hold them up in a public protest. That to me is simply wrong. But, admittedly, I still don't know where the appropriate line is, even in my hypothetical situation...Would I allow my kids to come along to a protest if they asked to? Probably, depending on what I expected the situation to be like. Would I force or pressure my kids to come with me? No. Would I ask or encourage them to come? Now I don't know.

I think there are serious problems with teaching our kids to parrot our beliefs: political, religious, moral, social, whatever. It seems much better to me to let kids experience life and the world, and to guide them as they do that, help them build a moral framework to understand what is happening to them as they experience new situations, rather than inundating them with all our adult concerns and telling them what they should think about them before they are even mature enough to understand what the problem is.

This reminds me of a scene from the Anne Lamott book I'm currently reading, Bird by Bird. Her example is even from a liberal point of view, though at least she has the grace to write about it humorously, realizing that it was silly:

"What are your characters teaching their children by example and by indoctrination? For instance, I was teaching [my son] Sam peace chants for a long time, when he was only two. It was during the war in the Persian Gulf; I was a little angry.
'What do we want?' I'd call to Sam.
'Peace,' he'd shout dutifully.
'And when do we want it?' I'd ask.
'Now!' he'd say...
The words were utterly meaningless to him, of course. I might as well have taught him to reply 'Spoos!' instead of 'Peace' and 'August!' instead of 'Now.'...I think something like this would tell a reader more about a character than would three pages of description. It would tell us about...her people-pleasing, her longing for peace,...her way of diluting rage and frustration with humor, while also using her child as a prop....And did this woman stop using her kid, once she realized what she was doing? No, she didn't, and this tells us even more. She kept at it, long after the war was over, until one day she called to her three-and-a-half-year-old son, 'Hey--what do we want?' And he said plaintively, 'Lunch.'"

My thoughts on Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows
(Yes, there are spoilers, for those who care...)

Well, after waiting and waiting (quite impatiently, I must add), I finally got to read the last of the Harry Potter series. I spent about an 8-hour stretch reading it on Saturday when it came out, finishing about 10:30 p.m. On the whole I'm quite pleased with it.

What I liked - It was a good journey, despite some stretches of tedium for Harry, Ron, and Hermione. I thought the characters developed well. One thing I think is very good about Rowling's writing is that, despite creating a traditional epic Good vs. Evil battle, her characters are just as real as real people. That is to say, they are not entirely good, or entirely bad (with the possible exception of Voldemort). For instance, Snape, while on the "good side" is a basically unlikable person, and Harry's father (and friends), whom Harry reveres, have been revealed to have been, while intelligent and clever, what Ron would call "gits" in their youths. The Malfoys, on the other hand, while on the "bad side" are still cast as humans who, in the end, care more about each other (their family) than gaining the Dark Lord's favor. Dumbledore himself is revealed in the book to have failings. Even Harry, in his rise to adulthood and victory, is not perfect. I had a fairly extended discussion with some of my family about Harry's using the cruciatus curse in book 7. While I was as taken aback by it as they were, it did seem in character, as he's tried it several times, and it seems one of his main character flaws is being unable or unwilling to control his anger. (E.g. lashing out at friends who have nothing to do with his problems, a lá OOTP.)

I was also pleased to see Snape redeemed in some fashion. Not that he's particularly huggable, but I had a hard time facing that I'd been trying to convince myself for 5 1/2 books that he was trying to help destroy Voldemort and then he's really not. While I wouldn't say he's necesarrily a role model, he did probably have the hardest job in the Order, and had to work harder than the others to control his natural leanings toward dark magic.

Also, I was very glad that Neville got an important job.

Finally, I liked that Harry finished off Voldemort without using the killing curse, but in a non-Disneyfied way. (By Disneyfied, I mean how in most Disney movies, the bad guy somehow conveniently gets himself killed without involving the good guy.)

What I didn't like - Not a lot, on first reading, anyway. It was sad that Lupin and Tonks died, and Dobby, but it would have felt very saccharine and fake to me had their been this massive rebellion and no one died, or lots of people died, but conveniently, no one the reader is attached to.

The one thing I really felt I missed was Ginny. After thinking about it, it made literary sense to keep the "quest" to Harry, Ron, and Hermione, who'd been together for the whole series, and logically Ginny couldn't have come along because she would have had the trace on her....but she's also very important to Harry and quite logically had some inside knowledge after being possessed by Voldemort. It was kind of disappointing to see so little of her.

In the end - I found it a good book, with some good laughs all the way through. (When I was 2/3 or maybe 3/4 of the way through, I laughed out loud at something, and Jeff, also reading, commented that it was encouraging that there were still things to laugh at that far along.) It was also very emotional - I cried when I realized that Harry had to die and couldn't figure any way he would be able to "resurrect" himself without seeming stupid (which, amazingly, it didn't) - that was also right after I read Lupin was dead, so it was pretty intense. Funny how I never cry at movies, but a really engaging book can make me cry....but I digress. All in all, I found it a satisfying end to the series. Now I'm on my second time through, so I can read less hurriedly!

Ah, yes,
Favorite quotes - "...he can move faster than Severus Snape confronted with shampoo..."
"He's nuttier than a heap of squirrel poo."