[HPFGU-OTChatter] And finally to Philip and his Dark Materials

[Aberforth's Goat]

Tabouli mused,

> A second musing I had while nearing the end of the second
> book was where are the book burning protesters?  Surely
> the ilk who want to decry HP as corrupting the minds of the
> young and steering them towards Satan would have *major*
> problems with the philosophy he invented, which *spells out*
> a subversive position on Christianity.  I suppose there may be
> some objectors out there, but on nothing like the same scale.

Actually, I suppose I'm one of the objectors. I've read HDM three times and
enjoyed it at many levels. However, as a guy who who puts up with long hours
and a low salary to work for a Christian church, I have trouble not
resenting Pullman's wholesale condemnation of his religion. I've had enough
church history - and worked in enough churches - to agree that Christians do
some God awful things. But I wish Pullman had given us at least *one*
Christian character whom I could admire as human being.

I don't think even CS Lewis communicated such as harsh message through his
portrayal of witches and Tash-worshippers. Yes, those characters do suggest
a basic distaste for non-Christians. However, the condemnation is implicit
and, I think, even subconscious. CSL was not consciously gunning for Wiccans
or even Muslims; he was much more interesteed in shooting down materialists
and cynics. He just hired a few hags and moors for a caste of stock
villains.

(BTW, his book The Abolition of Man spells this out - along with a deep
respect for all world religions. Or note that he has Emeth, the Tash
Worshipper, turn out to be good. Also btw, I'm not saying that implicit,
unconscious stereotyping is better than the explicit, conscious version. But
I think his views - particularly against the backdrop of his non-fiction -
were more nuanced than Pullman's.)

Anyway, that's my take, and I'm anything but objective. Nor would I want to
ban Pullman. In fact, I hope my own children will get to know both worlds
and learn from both of them - and love their very different beauties.

> Is it just that HP is much more digestible and accessible (not
> to mention insanely), and therefore far more "dangerous"?  Is
> it HP waves witches and wizards in people's faces in Chapter
> 1 of PS/SS, where they're really obvious, whereas you actually
> have to look closely at Pullman and read to the end of Book 2
> to find the sinister subversions?  Is it that Pullman requires too
> sophisticated a reading level to endanger the minds of those
> vulnerable to His Dark Messages (or those who seize upon
> those things)?

Certainly the level of publicity is very important. If Pullman were getting
as much as Rowling, my gang would be howling at the moon.

But I think the explicit way Pullman condemns Christianity actually makes
him less theatening for the sort of Christians who fear HP. They don't feel
any need to prove that Pullman is a bad guy - he goes to great lengths to
tell them so. Exposing Pullman would be about as enlightening as checking a
recording of a black sabbath for back masking.

What *does* give some Christians the willies is the feeling that certain
books which don't *appear* to question their faith actually have a hidden,
hostile agenda. Unveiling sinister secrets is something we all find
exciting; it just so happens that some Christians think they've done exactly
that with HP.

Some other Christians think they're tracking woozles. If *really* want to
catch some authors writing things deeply subversive to the integrity of
their faith, they should check the mirror.

Baaaaaa!

Aberforth's Goat (a.k.a. Mike Gray)
_______________________

"Of course, I'm not entirely sure he can read, so that may
not have been bravery...."