Blissful non-existence? I didn’t read it like that… I read it like… returning to be one with the consciousness of the universe. I’d have to reread it as it’s been a few years but I remember something about the dead turning to Dust (not mere dust, which didn’t seem nearly so mystical) and didn’t the Dust that was Lyra and the Dust that was Will find each other in the vastness of the universe and cling to each other? Or something like that?
That appealed very much to the spiritual side of me, still does.
When I read it, I didn’t analyze, but thinking back on what I remember the whole thing was bizaare and I do recall the ending leaving a bad taste in my mouth though I wasn’t sure why at the time.
Then again, I am also one of those who the Christian allegory of Narnia completely flew over. It’s probably a failing of mine but I just sorta let books wash over and through me and enjoy the ride (if I can) while not analyzing them too closely, so I often miss stuff that’s blatantly obvious.
I found it unconvincing and flat, but I think I read it very differently. To me, it was saying that people would be returning to be in the universe, but it didn’t seem like they would be conscious. They’d just be molecules floating around, like any other molecules. So when Roger and co. were all thrilled to be disappearing into non-existence, I thought it was strange that it was portrayed as such a happy thing. Non-existence, by definition, isn’t happy or sad; it just isn’t. I guess I’ll have to go back and reread it (bleh).
It does describe humans as ‘sons of Adam and daughters of Eve’, but apart from that, there’s no direct reference. The death, resurrection etc of Aslan is a bit of a giveaway, don’t you think? I mean, if people were saying Neo was a Christ allegory in The Matrix, they ought to have spotted it for Aslan in Narnia.
It may well have been flat, but I was quite a hardcore romantic and in my fluffy bunny Wiccan phase iirc when I read that so I might read it quite differently now (if I were ever inclined to go back and read it…) where I’m not so romantic and naive and more spiritual than identifying with any particular religion at all.
One reason I never went into it! I never had a problem with reading comprehension, just reading deeper meaning into things (even obvious things!). So when people point stuff out I generally have an “Oh… really?” moment.
I don’t think I realized it was blatantly athiest until a couple years afterwards. Mostly I tried to forget it because of the aforementioned bad taste in my mouth.
ETA:
I missed that also, until it was pointed out to me.
Well, they were trapped in an existence of near-death, suffering and being constantly bombarded by the Harpies in this otherworld gulag. Release, in the form of death, was a huge relief. I found it very moving, myself.
Yeah, but part of what I didn’t get was why there were in the gulag in the first place. What was the point of that? How do the souls get from one dimension to another? Who puts them there and why? What were they doing there, except to give Lyra someone to save?
As far as I remember, they were just there for no particular reason except that Pullman wanted them there. It doesn’t make any sense.
I saw it as being part of the old order being destroyed, which is ultimately what Lyra does. Why is a Hell necessary? Why do people need to fear death? Why can’t death be a release instead of torment? (It’s been a long time since I’ve read the books, but I remember thinking that the people who were in the gulag were there unfairly due to the “rules” of the Magisterium.)
From what I’ve read, one way of de-controversying the movie is that it ends before the first book does, without Lyra’s conversation with her father and his creation of a bridge to another world. In that conversation, he talks about his intentions with regard to the Kingdom of Heaven, among other thing; you can see why that might create problems. The article I saw implied that the movie ended after the children’s battle to escape Bolvangar, although I know that the major set-piece is the battle between Iorek and Iofur, which comes after the escape in the book, so I’m not quite sure what’s included and what not.
I’ll talk about Hell later, I’m supposed to be fixing lunch, but I looked through a picture book of the movie the other night to check on where the film ends; I was curious to see if they put in Roger’s murder. They did. So as far as I can tell, if they’re leaving out the Kingdom of Heaven thing, they’re still putting in the bridge to another world.
I only got through the first book, and, other than the villains sounding an awful lot like some version of the Catholic Church, I didn’t find much of it anti-religious, nor would I have cared if I did.
I did find it kind of dumb, however, and was in no way motivated to pick up the second volume.
Note for the critic who thought polar bears would be offended:
A friend of mine is a computer effects artist who worked on the polar bear sequences for a year only to learn that almost all of them had been cut (because the last four chapters of the book were cut from the film) and slated for the sequel. The only bear left is the heroic one, so bears will likewise be led into the series with a false sense of its bear-friendliness.
Well, I guess I don’t get that either. I really can’t see any point to putting every single person in the universe in Hell–except that as we know, the angels and Magisterium are pure evil and have to be shown doing evil things whether or not they have any point to them. Now maybe I don’t get it partly because my particular denomination isn’t very interested in Hell, but I really don’t get it.
Why do people need to fear death? I dunno. AFAIK part of what religion does is teach people not to fear it.
Why can’t death be a release instead of a torment? Same answer.
Exactly my problem with the trilogy. The Magisterium has to send everyone to hell because they are evil. What does the Magisterium gain from sending everyone to hell? Nothing, except sending everyone to hell is the sort of thing an evil deity would do.
And the trouble is that The Authority isn’t really a villain, being an impotent figurehead. And Metatron isn’t a very good villain, because who cares if an angel lusts after Nicole Kidman or not? Ms. Coulter IS a good villain, because she murders and spiritually mutilates children for her own selfish interests, and in the first two books her character seemed intelligible. Except by the third book, what was the point of all that child-napping and murder and treachery? Well, it turns out that the Magisterium is evil, and so they had to do evil things, and because Ms. Coulter was an agent of the Magisterium she had to do evil things, but she wasn’t evil really, because the Magisterium made her do it.
It’s theologically incoherent. I can accept a Ms. Coulter who murders and betrays for her own selfish interests. I can’t accept a Ms. Coulter who murders and betrays because an evil deity ordered her to do it. I can accept a Ms. Coulter who behaves selfishly and pretends it’s all for the greater good, I can’t accept a Ms. Coulter who actually believes it’s all for the greater good. I can’t accept that the whole plot can be resolved because Ms Coulter pushes Metatron off a cliff and hey, problem of evil solved.
And it grates on me because the trilogy actually is compelling. A crappy story isn’t worth thinking about, but I cared enough about these books to be annoyed by them.
See, I didn’t get that. As far as I’m concerned she never stopped acting evil or selfish. She just transferred her selfishness to selfish, obsessive love for her daughter and moved on to one more betrayal.
I read the books for the first time some months ago after seeing a discussion here. And since spoilers don’t bother me I knew quite a bit of the plot and the arguments about the third book before I read it. So I was expecting it to be utter crap and Coulter to make a bizarre 180 degree turn in characterization. Only I didn’t see it ;).
The third book is too rushed and overcrowded and hence somewhat weaker, but it wasn’t near as bad as some folks here had led me to believe. And Ms. Coulter’s character…err…remained in character far as I’m concerned.
Not that invalidates all your accusations of theological incoherence, which I can sorta agree with. The books are decent enough, but definitely flawed. Though plot issues aside, he IS a better writer than Rowling IMO ( pity he’s also apparently a much bigger dick ).
I thought the books were wonderful. Really moving stuff with great characters. And I hate to overanalyze everything the way that often happens with fantasy lit.
The Magisterium puts no one in hell. They are powerless in the afterworld. That’s just where people go.
The incident of Roger’s release from the land of he dead was doubtlessly inspired by the death of Pullman’s step father. His ashes were loaded into a firework and blasted across the sky. Roger is described as going off like a firework as well. To Pullman this is the best possible end.
I don’t think the Magesterium is acting at the behest of any evil god. The Authority and Metatron (who are in no way gods) take little to no interest in them. They only respond to Asriel who is out to get them. The Magisterium are basically stumbling along blindly trying to do the right thing, namely to get rid of original sin. Their idea of the right thing was evil, but they had their understandable motives.
To reitierate, there is no God in these books. The Authority and Co. are just powerful creatures. God does not die in these books. The question of an ultimate creator is unaddressed. One could look at Dust as being god-like, not too unlike the Holy Spirit.
The souls of the dead are all in hell, because they’ve sinned/done evil/disobeyed, and the Authority believes that they need to be punished for their wickedness.
The Authority/Metranon/Magesterium aren’t evil in an abstract sense. They’re evil because they’ve set up a moral code that they make people follow. They’re evil because they want to control people instead of letting people live the way they want, and because they teach people that the things that make us human…our sexuality, our ability to tell right from wrong, our desire to understand, are all evil and not to be trusted.
I’ve met PP on a number of occasions - he’s pretty gleeful about the anti-clerical messages in the book.
eg The Catholic Herald or somesuch wrote that one of the trilogy was ‘fit to be burned’ (from memory, something like that) - PP had the printer add that quote to the blurb.
The trilogy, in the end, left me feeling a bit soulsick. Which is hard, since I don’t have a soul to be sick.
I didn’t dislike the books. But thinking about them makes me feel a little uneasy. I think the final accounting for me was too many really disturbing and upsetting images, with no up side.
I’m glad I read them and never want to read them again.
One of these days, I’m going to read other Pullman books, though.
