His Dark Messages

[caliburncy]

Hi,

Part two!

--- Tabouli wrote:
> Second, does the fact that he has *written* a trilogy which
> denounces Christianity as repressive and deluded necessarily mean
> that he, as a person, denounces it for the same reasons?  (it's the
> ol' fictional/factual divide again!).

In general, no, just because someone writes something that conveys a 
certain viewpoint, it does not necessarily mean that he or she agrees 
with that viewpoint.  We're all agreed on that, I assume.

But speaking specifically about whether there is correlation between 
Philip Pullman's actual views, and the views he expresses in His Dark 
Materials, I'm going to have to respond both "yes" and "no."

I respond, "yes," because Philip Pullman clearly thinks that he 
believes what he wrote, in pretty much exactly the words he wrote it, 
because when people ask him about his views on religion, he pretty 
much always starts off by saying "I prefer just to point to the story 
and say 'There it is.'"  (This particular quote is from the 
Readerville interview by the way:

http://www.readerville.com/WebX?14@119.uIPuaoC4fnb.13@.ef6c70e/0

but similar statements can be found in many of his other interviews.)

Also in that same Readerville interview, Philip Pullman says the 
following:

> Do I believe in God? Well, actually, no. But could I just raise in
> response the question - does it MATTER what I believe in? You can
> see what the BOOK believes in - what it values, and what it
> criticises; what it holds up for admiration, and what it deplores.
> What I personally believe in or not isn't really important -
> except, of course, for the question of sincerity. Did I mean it?
> That's what the question implies. Well, can I say that you don't
> spend seven years on a journey like this without needing some sort
> of moral ballast to keep the keel upright and make sure you stay on
> course; in other words, I couldn't do this frivolously or withou t
> conviction. Yes, I believe in what the book says. I mean every word
> of it.

And, BTW, for anyone that hasn't yet read it, I *highly* recommend 
that you read the full Readerville interview.  It was conducted 
informally by fans, which is important for reasons I will explain 
below, and it is HANDS DOWN the most thorough and enlightening 
interview about His Dark Materials that I have encountered on the 
Internet.  Even if you do have to work your way through a lot of 
superfluity to get to the chewy caramel center.

Now then, let's move on to the reason that my answer to Tabouli's 
question is also "no," as well as "yes."

I don't know Philip Pullman personally, so you'll have to take this 
comment with a grain of salt, but you have to understand something 
about the way he writes.  When he writes formally, like for a book or 
speech or essay, he is a sensationalist.  I do not mean this in a bad 
way.  What I mean is that, given a choice between accuracy and drama, 
he tends to choose drama.  Now please note that by my saying he 
doesn't choose accuracy, I do not mean he *lies*--indeed he doesn't, 
as far as I know.  I simply mean that when writing formally, he will 
tend to present a viewpoint that is a bit more simplistic than the 
viewpoint he actually holds.

I know a fair amount of people that are like this, because of the 
time I spent as a debater, where this method of communication is 
basically the norm where "tactics" are concerned.  So I'm not 
unfamiliar with the phenomenon, although I may be wrong and over-
generalizing when I apply it to Philip Pullman.

Anyway, it seems that the only way to get at what he *really* thinks, 
in more specific, qualified terms, is to put him in an informal 
conversational position.  This means stuff such as interviews--but 
not just any interview: only ones that are sufficiently at ease and 
unprofessional in feel.  That's why his comments in the Readerville 
interview, conducted with fans, are so good.  His other good 
interviews tend to be similarly loose and chatty: Such as ones 
conducted with small websites, or especially one that was conducted 
at a fan convention.

And then, when an informal situation removes the need for drama--the 
need to make a point in a persuasive way--all of a sudden, you get a 
Philip Pullman who seems much less extremist.

In fact, I really like this version of Philip Pullman.  He is 
opinionated, but much more open-minded.  Even if we don't always 
agree, he is someone I would be happy to discuss life, the universe 
and everything with.

For example, in the Readerville interview, forum member Emily 
Christensen asked the following:

> I would be the first person to rail against the abuses perpetuated
> by various churches in the name of God/religion. But as a religious
> person, I struggled with the way you portrayed the Church in your
> series. You took such care to give your other characters moral
> nuance, but every single representative of the Church is wholy bad.
> Why?

And Philip Pullman answered:

> Why are all the church characters bad? That was due to a flaw in my
> artistry, no doubt.

Personally, I think it's pretty big of him to admit this.

He explains a bit further in another interview, called Heat and Dust, 
at the following URL:
http://www.thirdway.org.uk/past/showpage.asp?page=3949

(This is a very interesting interview as well, although it puts 
Pullman and the interviewer both very firmly in debate mode, so that 
the open-mindedness is sometimes lost again.)

Here he writes:

> I'm not making an argument, or preaching a sermon or setting out a
> political tract: I'm telling a story. And I accept that if I'd had
> more time to think about it, no doubt I would have put in a good
> priest here or there, just to show they're not all horrible.
>
> But there we are. If you're writing a novel, especially a long
> story of thirteen hundred pages, there are always going to be
> things you wish you'd done differently. Artistic perfection is not
> achievable in anything much over the length of a sonnet.

But going back to the Readerville interview, there he does also go on 
to explain a bit more, and if you read between the lines, you will 
see this partly supports my view of him as tending toward 
sensationalism.  He says, "I was trying to hit a target that deserved 
hitting, and there's no merit in pulling punches when important 
issues are at stake."  So throughout this explanation, he subtly 
acknowledges that he gives a biased view of the church, but does so 
because "pulling punches," as he puts it is, essentially, less 
effective from an argumentative standpoint.  I am reading into this 
of course, but at least flatter myself into believing that I'm not 
entirely off the mark.

In fact, Pullman is apparently consciously aware that he tends toward 
sensationalism.  He addresses this in a quote from an interview that 
I can't seem to find at the moment.  What can I say?  I don't keep 
them all at my fingertips. :-)  But anyway, he does say basically the 
same thing in that aforementioned Heat and Dust interview, he just 
doesn't explain it as well.  The interviewer mentions a comment from 
his Carnegie Medal Acceptance Speech where he stated that adult 
authors tend to "cut artistic capers" for their readers, rather than 
concerning themselves with story, like children's books do.  And 
Philip Pullman responds, adding in a little reminder that, "I said it 
to be provocative."

Now, if I had that other interview handy, you would be able to see 
that in that interview, he addresses this better.  But what he 
basically said there, as I recall, was that he often writes things in 
a manner that's a bit more overstated than actuality.  In short, he 
basically acknowledges this tendency to over-generalize on purpose, 
with the intent of provoking thought thereby, as a touch of 
sensationalism.

And if you look, you'll see this in His Dark Materials, when compared 
to Pullman's actual views.  He often has to clarify where he 
miscommunicated himself by coming across too strongly.  For example, 
he explains the following in the Readerville interview:

> I'll say a brief word abou tthe Authority, though. The God who dies
> is the God of the burners of heretics, the hangers of witches, the
> persecuters of Jews, the officials who recently flogged that poor
> girl in Nigeria who had the misfortune to become pregant after
> having been forced to have sex - all these people claim to know
> with absolute certainty that their God wants them to do these
> things. Well, I take them at their word, and I say in response that
> that God deserves to die. 
>
> The Authority, then, is an ancient IDEA of God, kept alive
> artificially by those who benefit from his continued existence.

And with his comments about C.S. Lewis, he wrote an essay that 
condemned the viewpoints of The Chronicles of Narnia--and he did so 
in a way that was probably a little bit too harsh.  (If it hadn't 
been so strident, it would probably have been agreed with by more 
people.)  But he finds himself going back and saying things like 
this, again on Readerville:

> More comments on C.S.Lewis: I've criticised his stance in Narnia
> (and the adult novels too, for that matter), but I have always
> praised many of the things he has said about children's literature
> and narrative and so on. What's more, since we've mentioned
> Screwtape, a good deal of the psychology of that book is extremely
> subtle and perceptive. I don't want to condemn anyone completely.
> People are too complicated for that, as Lyra realises.

And also, in the ACHUKA interview, which is at the following URL:
http://www.achuka.co.uk/ppint.htm

he says that "The other is to trust the story. If people are reading 
Harry Potter (despite your reservations) – dammit, if they're reading 
THE LION, THE WITCH AND THE WARDROBE – then something in the story 
must have gripped them, and once gripped, twice a reader."

This quote is hard to understand outside the context of the rest of 
the interview, but the implication there is that, even though he is 
so strongly opposed the C.S. Lewis, he does still think that if 
children find it of value then he is in favor of that.

So, basically, what I am saying in about a million words, is that I 
think Philip Pullman often misrepresents himself through 
sensationalism by making himself sound a little more extremist than 
he actually is.  He really is a man of very strong, often harsh 
viewpoints, but this aspect of his personality is a bit overplayed, I 
suspect, by the perception we get of him through primarily formal 
communications.

I get the feeling that the real Philip Pullman is much less inclined 
toward absolutist statements, etc.  At least, that's my understanding 
from the little hints I've seen.

Either way, whether or not I agree with all of what he has to say, I 
do respect his opinion, as I suspect pretty much all of us here do.

-Luke