Golden Compass *controversy* thread ---UNBOXED SPOILERS---

I understand there’s a bit of controversy over the nature and supposed intent of the movie (and more so, the books upon which it is based) The Golden Compass.

The objection appears to be voiced by Christian group(s) claiming something like:

[spoiler space for thread preview and in case you missed the UNBOXED SPOILER warning in the title…]
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
OK

-The movie portrays a battle against an evil organisation called ‘The Magisterium’, and that this (allegedly) represents the Catholic Church
-The movie portrays the defeat of a character named ‘God’, who apparently was a phony all along and not the real God.

Now I should say at this point, I’m looking for objective answers on whether there really is anything in these books/movie that is understandably overtly offensive to Christians - anyone wanting to discuss how religion is false and evil anyway, or how there’s no evidence for the existence of God, can please discuss those distracting topics in another place.

So…
How supportable is the argument that ‘The Magisterium’ is meant to represent the Catholic Church?

Is the killing of this ‘God’ character framed in such a way that the notion of destroying God is to be considered a positive thing? Or is it just like that Star Trek movie where some character fraudulently claiming to be God gets his come-uppance?

In short, is there any substantial accuracy to these (and any other) objections people have raised?

Please also note: Nowhere and in no way am I suggesting that anti-Christian or anti-religious speech or opinion should be suppressed - what I’m trying to do here is to find out whether or not this has been legitimately labelled as an example of anti-Christian/anti-religious literature/film.

It’s not really there’s really any controversy over the intent of the books, anyways. Pullman’s pretty open about the fact that they’re written to be anti-christian, and the Magestirum is pretty blatantly an alternate universe version of the Catholic Church. He wanted to make a response to the Christian allegory of Narnia, though honestly Narnia is a lot more subtle in its Christ allegory then Pullman is in his atheist one.

I don’t think I’ve heard anyone argue that its not supposed to be interpreted this way. It’s not a subtle allegory like Narnia, it’s message is pretty clear in the first book, and by the third book if you haven’t figured out the message before God’s body hits the floor, you probably will figure it out by that point.

I’m still a bit hazy about the role of the God character in the stories. I had guess that the thrust of it was something like:

-Having someone pretend to be God is a bad thing, therefore the death of such an impostor is not to be mourned.

But I’m now wondering if it’s actually more like:

-Any entity claiming to be God is probably an impostor and should be destroyed.

Is either of those closer or further from the truth (about the stories)?

Look up “demiurge”.

Could you expand on that a bit?

Briefly - according to certain Gnostic beliefs, the God of the Bible (or at least the OT) is a flawed Creator, thus explaining the presence of evil in the universe The word “demiurge” is Greek for “artisan”, and since the Gnostics believed the material universe was evil, then obviously its creator - and ruler - had to be evil as well.

Pullman, in my view, was strongly influenced by Gnostic philosophy.

It’s not so much that they kill God in the books–it’s that God gets killed as an aside, as an event of monumental inconsequence, because he is too pathetic and senile to even matter any more. No one is stretching or exaggerating anything when they say the books are anti-Christian and really anti-Theist.

Fair enough - I was trying to get a handle on whether this was just another screechy imaginary complaint, or if it had some actual substance (which it looks like it does).

Never heard Narnia referred to as “subtle” before. Is the series “His Dark Materials” even more overtly allegorical? Not sure if I want to read it, in that case.

It’s hardly even “allegorical”. There’s not a lion in a Jesusy role, there’s a doddering, drooling, incontinent old idiot who’s dragged around by angels and goes by the name of God. In a “skim and you’ll miss it” moment, he’s killed, and that’s the end of that. But that’s in the third book, not The Golden Compass.

The first book was less overtly anti-theist, because it was all still a mystery, and it was the best book of the trilogy, IMHO. The third book just felt icky to me, but not really because of the anti-theist stuff.

I haven’t seen the movie yet, but I had heard that they somehow took all the “potentially offensive” religious stuff out, and I was really perplexed as to how they were going to make that work, especially if they filmed all three books. I’m really thrilled to hear that’s not the case.

Apparently - according to the articles I’ve read (and am trying to evaluate with your help), they did water down the atheist themes in this movie - and that’s part of the concern of the people protesting - that their kids will end up buying the books and being exposed to the more overt message in them.

One of the big driving forces behind the later books is what happens when you die. In this world there is no heaven or hell just a Underworld more like the Greek idea that the xtian one. The dead are just left there in limbo for all eternity. This is ended during a war with the angels. After that people who die just die and cease to be, this is considered a very big release for them. A republic of Heaven is created and the false god is removed.
IMO the negative fellings for this book are OTT in the extreme. Here’s a small bit of a review of the movie by IGOR TORONYI-LALIC, ARTS CRITIC, CATHOLIC HERALD which is a lot more level headed

BBC NEWS | Entertainment | Compass points: Catholic and atheist

Ah, I see. Well…I’m going to have to see it, I guess, before I can really weigh in on whether the *movie *is anti-Catholic, or anti-Christian, or anti-theist. The book series as a whole definitely is all three, although the first book is pretty ambiguous, and the second just mildly unsettling, from a theological standpoint. It’s the third one, for many reasons, which had me, more than once, going, “Holy shit! Did he really just write that?! These books are really not kids’ books, are they?” And I stand by that; I don’t think these books as a whole are appropriate for children under the age of about 15. I do share concerns that dumbing down the movie will encourage young children to pick them up again, and I’m not at all happy with the publisher or booksellers for loading them onto the Harry Potter bandwagon. They are good books (at least the first two), but they have a lot of disturbing imagery and themes which aren’t really suitable for immature brains. (And I mean that in a functional, biological way, not a judgmental way.)

And I’m not devout or anything. I’m definitely not a Christian, and I’m quite tickled by irreverent works of art and literature. I especially enjoy books that tell old stories, including bible ones, with a new spin or twist, even when that’s humanizing super-human or Biblical characters (loved The Red Tent, for example, and Sharon Shinn’s *Samaria *Trilogy) And yet I was made uncomfortable by the third book of this series.

See, I’m still trying to figure out how the books are specifically anti-Catholic. After all, in Lyra’s world, the Calvinists won and basically set up a Cromwell-style state headed up in Geneva. (That’s what I remember and how I interpreted the text anyway.)

This is one of my issues as well. There is little about how things are ran in our world. It’s Lyra’s that is fucked. That’s not ours. Not that it matters to a lot(not all so don’t get your knickers in a twist) of religious people. Their sky pixie is being treatened and they don’t like that.

You may be right. I guess I interpreted it, in the first and second books, as specifically jabbing at the Catholics because of the ostentation and richness and power of the Magisterium - things I associate, unconsciously, with the Roman Catholics of our world. The third book, of course, just popped everyone’s balloon. So perhaps it’s unfair to single out the Catholic church, they may not have been a specific target, and my own life experiences may have led me to misinterpret that, being less familiar with the Calvinists and where they might have taken the world, had they had the chance.

I guess I heard hoofbeats and thought “horse”, when maybe “zebra” *was *the right answer this time.

One big point in the “anti-Catholic” or “anti-C’nity/religion/theocracy” debate-

In the real world, “The Magisterium” is a technical term for the teaching authority of the Roman Catholic Church. No other religion uses that term. If it were called “The Synagogue”, no one would try to say it represents Religion or Theocracy in general.

And in the books, “God/The Authority”, while not really GOD but the first sentient being to evolve & convinced the latter-comers that it was GOD, is the closest thing to a
personal Deity there is, so yeah, the trilogy comes down to “killing God”.

FWIW, I fully intend to see this film & any others that may be made.

And to hijack, I finally saw BEOWULF yesterday- now, THAT was a movie!

Well, there you go. Horses after all.

Fifteen? Really? I mean, I’m not a parent, but I didn’t think the HDM books were anywhere near as disturbing as, say, Lord of the Flies, which was required reading in school when I was thirteen.

From what I’ve read in various interviews this is my impression:

  1. The author’s intent was more anti-religious, and specifically anti dogmatic/oppresive/corrupt religion than specifically anti-Christian. The most specifically anti-Christian thing about it is perhaps that it was in some senses a response to Narnia which had a Christian bent.

  2. The first movie has watered down the anti-religious aspects to make it more marketable, but the first book wasn’t as anti-religious as the others, and the producer of the film has declared his intention not to water it down in the subsequent sequels, as well as pointing out how much more difficult this would be in any case given the nature of their plots.

  3. The God character who gets killed isn’t really God, it’s some kind of impotent figurehead, the spokesperson for God if you will.