It obviously doesn’t carry that freight, because Pullman does not invest his characters with true souls, that being a concept antithetical to his anti-religionist fictional universe. But I fail to see how construing daemons as the “part that gives him/her a spark of life/creativity/fire” instead of as “souls” makes the act in question any less depraved. Are you more comfortable with:
the forcible removal and extinguishment of the “spark of life/creativity/fire” from children?
Because I’m not. And no, there is no analog in “the real world” – as usual, man is much better at inventing evil than God ever was – but that does not make the act less henious even in the universe of Pullman’s creation. I don’t demand that you be offended by it, but I will not concede that it requires a Christian or even a religious world-view in order to find the very idea offensive. It’s the chief reason I did not like the books; I could not get past the evilness of this major plot device.
And infinitely less well thought out and more poorly written than those, too.
I found the first one confused. It was anti-what the author imagined religion to be, but it was also clear that the author didn’t really understand religion, religious people, or religious institutions, so those portions of the book were a mess. (Other portions of the book were a mess for other reasons.) I can’t imagine that the third could be that much worse.
Word on that. How about the Passion movie. Dude gets homoerotically brutalized and murdered for three hours in order bribe an infinitely sadistic God not to torture people for eternity. You can’t top religion for depravity, man.
Not quite. This is a corrected version: “bribe an infinitely sadistic God not to torture people who said ‘Please’ for eternity”
The Dude doesn’t give a fuck for those who don’t say please.
I haven’t read Endymion, but I would think tbat Hyperion is pretty much unfilmable. The (for lack of a better word) spiritual power of the tales can’t really carry over to the screen, and the narrative structure is unusual for films. But do you see a religious objection to it?
Boy, you sure got me there. :rolleyes: I hate this response because it’s such a complete strawman: “I don’t like X.” “Yeah, well, Y is WORSE!!!” So what?
I can’t recall placing the act on the Giant Scale O’ Depravity, and I don’t believe I’m required to. I’m also pretty confident I never said that the excuse for the depravity (who or what it is done in the name of) makes a tinker’s damn of a difference to me. Have someone write a nice entertaining book about people burning in hell, and I predict that will offend me as well. I don’t find violence or depravity entertaining. I know some people do, and fine for them; I don’t.
My point was solely that the Roman Catholic Church wre the Bad Guys in the two Endymion books, and if Golden Compass tanks because of Catholic (and other Christian groups’) objections, then no one’s going to be in a hurry to bankroll another genre movie with the Church as the baddies. Even in Da Vinci Code made money.
Of course there will be religious objects to a film of Dan Simmons’s series. Even if it’s only The Catholic League and a few assorted Baptist flavors of professional protesters.
What I want to know is if people outside of the US are making noises about this film.
There is a serious disconnect if you find reading about people burning hell offensive, but are hey-o-okie-dokie worshiping a god that supposedly sends people there in reality, and then getting offended at a book that takes a negative view of such a god.
Some sort of plugging the ears and saying “la, la la.”
Moderator interjection: Epimetheus: Personal insults have no place in Cafe Society. You can say what you want about the books, but not about the other posters. Please keep the discussion focused on the topic.
Heh, this whole debate sort of reminds me of the debate at the beginning of The Master and Margarita, where the Soviet bureaucrat was lecturing the poet for incorrectly writing an “anti-Christian” poem.
The reason: the poet, while making out Jesus to be a bad guy, a combination of every evil, still wrote about the figure as if he actually existed, thus missing the main point - that he didn’t exist at all.
[Of course, then the Devil shows up in person to teach that bureaucrat a lesson ]
Seems to me that if taken as an “anti-Christian” series, the Pullman books suffer from the same defect - in his books, all that religion stuff is essentially true, only not what the believers think it to be.
Heh, if they want anti-christian someone should film the Incarnations of Immortality series. In which God (technically the incarnation of good) who has fallen into such narcissism that he hasn’t paid the slightest attention to anything but his own reflection for 1000’s of years.
And then in the end is voted out and replaced by the female ghost of a woman who commited suicide, among other interesting indiscretions.
So let me see if I’ve got this straight. In response to my query, you say you object to the fate of the souls of Pullman’s characters. When I point out that daemons =/= souls, you agree, and say that Pullman’s characters don’t have true souls, but the fate of their daemons is just as depraved as if they were souls.
I’ll agree with you on this point, because, since I don’t believe in God, it’s my view that men have invented everything that anyone has ever called depraved. Of course, the people who invented God have, IMHO, invented depravities in his name that are right down there with the worst of them. But perhaps that’s another thread.
It’s a work of fiction. As Diogenes points out, it’s kind of hard to have fictional bad guys who don’t do, or at least try to do, something bad. Personally, I can’t recall being offended by anything in a work of fiction because it’s not, you know, real. And presumably, ostensibly offensive/depraved stuff in a work of fiction is there for a reason.
I’ve enjoyed films and works of fiction that contained depictions of acts that some might characterize as depraved, not because I like depravity (despite what you’ve heard about me), but because in the hands of a talented author/filmmaker we can learn something about ourselves and/or the human condition from such depictions. That may explain why the Bible has so many scenes of depravity. Again, I can’t force you to watch/read such things, but I’m left wondering what kind of depravity-free fiction you enjoy. Does murder (in fiction) count as depravity? Child abuse? Sodomy?
It couldn’t possibly have anything to do with the “anti-religionist” theme and its author?
I read the books and enjoyed them, although I agree that the plot of the third one is a bit rushed and doesn’t really make a lot of sense. I am also totally secular. My son and I are looking forward to the movies, and plan to see them all.
With that preface, a few points that nobody has mentioned in this thread yet:
The folks who wrote the e-mails quoted on Snopes are suggesting that Christians boycott the movie, not kill the author/actors. If they don’t want to see it because it would offend their sensibilities, they are under no obligation to see it. I also choose to avoid movies that I think I would not enjoy. (However, I have no idea what those references to circumcision/female circumcision were talking about. I think they are referring to “intercision,” or separating a child from his daemon. Not quite the same thing…)
I know that Philip Pullman is an atheist because he says so…but the books are hardly atheistic, since (as others have pointed out) God actually exists as a minor character. However, I can’t believe that nobody has mentioned the gay angels yet. They are really major characters in the second book! I’m betting that they are either expunged from the second movie, or that one will be female. Wow, no Christian hate mail for GAY ANGELS?!
I have to agree that the books are clearly anti-religion. There’s lots of good story there, though, even ignoring that part…at least until the third book, which will have to be largely rewritten anyway to make into a movie that is less than 5 hours long and makes some sense.
I apologize if I was insulting a poster, but saying an action is tantamount it plugging the ears and saying “la la la” is a personal insult? I see worse than that in MPSIMS (and not “Warned about”).
But Jodi didn’t say this. She says the anti-religious aspect did not offend her. She deplores the depravity in the books(her words). Soul does not equal daemon was a sidetrack. I am not her, but it seems clear to me that she is offended by the act of taking something essential away from children–no matter what that essence may be.
She’s not willing to read a book about Hell, either. So what? Why does she have to be?
This is her opinion. She can think anything she likes. For all you know, she is a Christian who does not believe in Hell. There are many who don’t. Myself, I think we are all too busy creating our own hells on earth to die and find another one. I don’t believe in heaven, either. Lots of Christians believe as I do-you are painting with a broad brush.
While I don’t deplore it, I was disgusted by Mrs Coulter–she is truly evil, in my book (I do enjoy the serendipity of her name). It’s been awhile since I read the trilogy, but I saw Mrs C as a symbol of research run amok without ethics–that was the impression I was left with.
I enjoyed book one and two, but by book three, I could only think of Pullman as a bitter, angry author. I am at best a nominal Christian. I found nothing offensive re religion or Christianity in book one or book two. I appreciated the different POV. Pullman highlights much that is wrong with organized religion and man’s manipulation of spirituality to achieve unethical and self serving goals. IMO, fundmentalists are the ones who have made a pocket god of the Almighty, by forcing their viewpoint as the only True one, but I digress.
I liked The Subtle Knife much more. And the gay angels are so great. I am not sure if I’m going to see the movie, if only because Lyria and her world are so very different, I hate to see them Disneyified (my term for the shortcuts scriptwriters take to dumb down complex pieces of work into tidy 2 hours products).
Look, if you’re going to address your comments to me, I will ask that you truthfully represent what I have said. I can’t stop you from creating such blatent strawmen, but I can demand you don’t attribute them to me because you are intellectually dishonest to do so.
It’s more that I don’t care whether you want to consider the daemons to be souls or not – though they are widely held to be just that – because I don’t find the action of destroying them any less depraved. As I said.
Yes, I was aware that it is a work of fiction. :rolleyes: I don’t enjoy reading about horrific acts and while I suppose I must needs be more okay with fictional (fake) horrific acts than the real variety, I am disturbed by both and entertained by neither.
They your mileage varies, doesn’t it?
Sure, but whether the reason given justifies the disturbance of the psyche will ultimately be the judgment of the reader, and your opinion in this regard is no more valid than mine.
“Depravity” is in they eye of the reader, isn’t it? I don’t read horror fiction, I didn’t enjoy American Psycho, I rarely find sexual violence against women entertaining. The difference between you and me is that I don’t require you to share my tastes nor do I imply that you are stupid (“it’s not, y’know, real”) or provincial for not sharing mine.
]
That’s how I make many of my entertainment choices. Someone should start a website rating each book, movie, etc. with a panty-twisting factor.