- "If there is a God, and he is as the Christians describe him, then he deserves to be put down and rebelled against."
This is from Philip Pullman, author of the very-very-Gnostic-and-not-even-vaguely-atheistic His Dark Materials trilogy, the first volume of which has been made into a children's film. Haven't seen the film, will, loved the books. Pullman is being called an atheist about every minute and a half by the slack-jawed inbred yokels who insist that their Santa-Claus-cum-demiurge version of the Infinite Divine is a person, and one to be both feared and worshipped. Well, he's not. I also utterly reject this Sunday-School-cartoon-character as having anything to do with God. Does this make me an atheist?
I don't believe in God, I Know.
When Pullman kills off the Authority in his books, he's doing us all a favour. Rather than the mad Archon against whom the characters rebel, Pullman sides with the Dust, a barely detectable essence of permeating Divinity; a concept of God far more subtle, demanding more reflection, than pray-n-obey. I can see why the Zeus-worshippers don't care too much for Dust: They want their God throned, bearded and lightning-bolt chucking.
The Magisterium is a metaphor for absolute power corrupting absolutely; to equate that with the Roman Catholic Church is to assert that Rome is exactly that corrupt power – an assertion I reject. I don't deny that the RCC has been this in the past, but certainly not in my lifetime. Get over it.
HDM eschews the cookie-cutter formula for youth fiction, in which only a virgin can break the curse, only the innocent can see the magic. CS Lewis would rather kill off the innocent in a train wreck to keep them innocent forever, rather than have them become mature, sexual, thinking grown-ups. We are to pity the survivor who has to face the adult world and envy the mangled corpses who remain in blissful ignorance for eternity.
Pullman paints a universe in which the children must grow up to become powerful: they must learn and make difficult choices and noble sacrifices. Their courage comes not from blind trust that Aslan* will save them, but rather from an increasing sense of their own maturing integrity. Pullman prizes individuation over innocence, and I can certain see how a culture obsessed with prolonging childhood into one's thirties would react with squeamishness at such an idea.
>*[Don't get me wrong, I love Aslan as a neo-Mithraic archetype and I think he's handled very well by Lewis. It's just that bravery comes easy to a literary character knowing that when they leap off the building, Superman will save them. It's a cheap courage.]
11 comments:
J+, I was just discussing this ery topic with a friend last night. Topical, VERY topical.
I believe these same qualities of "authority and dust" are what make Neil Gaiman's stories so appealing. His characters deal with darkness and sex and grief and blood...all the essential elements of life, which we must experience and know if we are to grow as human beings.
Cool post, Jordan+
Firstly, on the film itself, I was a little disappointed. It's roughly two hours long, which is pretty short for a film nowadays, especially a fantasy, but I guess they were aiming for children and didn't want to bore them. However, this leaves some parts extremely rushed, with certain characters and the end battle seemingly just flung in at the last minute with no concern for pacing. That said, it's worth seeing, especially if you're a fan of the books.
As for your comments themselves, I've read a few interviews with Pullman, and I must say, I don't like him as a person at all. I haven't read his books yet (but intending to), but I've read many synopses, etc., and it's hard not to see them as extremely Gnostic in character. However, Pullman himself seems to be so maliciously cynical that I have to wonder if he even got half the message he was writing about.
For example, the whole ideal of Dust is, as you stated, a wonderful example of the permeating reality of an indefinable God. However, as far as I'm aware, Pullman rejected this idea and stated that his view of Dust is entirely scientific (i.e. star-dust), and has absolutely nothing to do with spirituality whatsoever. Indeed, if I'm not mistaken, he claimed to be an athiest himself, which definitely seems at odds with his books, but not, as far as I've seen, with the way he conducts himself in interviews. So I think the problem of people thinking he's an athiest started with himself.
As for the Magisterium being an analogy for the RCC, it doesn't surprise me. Again, I haven't read the books, but as far as I know this group is not called the Magisterium but "the Church". Now, I think it would be naive of us to say that there's no little "hit" there against the RCC with that reference, as we generally think of the RCC when we mention "the Church". Indeed, there was uproar within the Church about this use in the film, and thus it was changed to Magisterium to contain its message but avoid its appliance to the RCC.
If I remember correctly I think Pullman also said that Narnia was more mature than Lord of the Rings because it directly asked "Who is God?" (etc.), which I think, while an interesting idea, is a little naive - especially if you've read the Silmarillion and other Tolkien works. Tolkien wasn't a theologian, but there's no denying the maturity of the theology contained within his work (which is, afterall, a mythology, not a children's book to make kids think about God).
I have a few more things to say about Pullman, but I'll save them for later.
-D
The "Dust as divine quality" comes from Pullman himself in an interview some years back, and during another interview (alongside the Archbishop of Canterbury) when asked if he was an atheist he responded with "I'm anti-authoritarian". I've seen him respond in just this way several times now, and, again, if the only choice is between the God-as-understood-by-mainstream-Christianity and atheism (which is usually the context for those looking for soundbites) then bloody hell, I'm an atheist too. But I would suggest there's perhaps a more nuanced understanding of God that is to be found in either Sunday School or a TV interview.
Certainly the Church in the books has parallels with the Roman Catholic Church as a literary device; what I deny is the equivalency or that he's attacking the real, currentL Church – he's in fact attacking an idea of Church that needs to be repudiated.
Further: I'd have to totally reject Dust as "scientific star dust" as the children, towards the end of the story, storm hell, where all the souls are imprisoned by the Authority, and on their release, become Dust and dissolve into the world around them. It's clearly a "dissolution into the Pleroma", and yes Pullman is familiar with this term and concept.
I'm not saying he's a Gnostic, just that the story deliberately employs Gnostic themes, terminology, and cosmology to tell a story that Jung would be proud of.
Further further: Pullman loathes Lewis, for the very reasons I describe in the post. He's quite public about it.
Read the books, you'll get it straightaway.
I think you might be missing my point. I'm not saying that, for example, the Dust described in the books is a scientific thing. I'm saying that in at least one interview he was asked about this being a spiritual thing and he said it's not, it's a scientific thing. Indeed, he shied away from the idea of him espousing spiritual ideas at all.
Likewise for the "athiesm" thing. Now, you're right, most athiests nowadays are actually just anti-what-the-RCC-says-is-God, and don't really know any better about the wider spiritual scope (and often readily believe in a "something" up there), but the fact that he would state that he is an athiest and that, for example, his books are what athiests would pray for, if they prayed, does tend to support the consensus view of the public, etc., that he's an athiest. I mean, you can't attack people for calling him an athiest if you does so himself.
As for Lewis, I've read lots of his thoughts on him, including the ones you shared (about killing off the children to retain their innocence), and they make perfect sense. The Christian thing to him would have been to let the children live. However, to loath Lewis and then say that the Narnia books are more serious than Lord of the Rings is definitely insinuates that he loathes Tolkien all the more.
So I don't think it's a matter of me not "getting it". I haven't read the books yet, but can clearly see the Gnostic themes contained within it. Indeed, it's startling to read his interviews when you know what he's written, as they seem like different people entirely. My point is not about his books, but about what he has said in interviews (like the ones you quoted from). He just doesn't come off very well to me in them.
-D
I'm saying that in at least one interview he was asked about this being a spiritual thing and he said it's not, it's a scientific thing...
...but the fact that he would state that he is an athiest... I mean, you can't attack people for calling him an athiest if you does so himself.
That's just it, I've been following him for years and I've never heard him say he was an atheist, even when the question has been put to him point blank.
Now, things change and he may currently identify as an atheist, but I've seen him historically work hard to avoid the term. And like I said I heard him say that Dust *is* a spiritual thing, just a non-personal spiritual thing. Sure, authors contradict themselves all the time, but after tracking this guy since the books came out in North America, I've only heard him say the 180 of what you've heard him say.
Nice Post Jordan+! For those interested a great secondary source is: Killing the Imposter GOD--Philip Pullman's Spiritual Imagination In His Dark Materials, by Donne Freitas & Jason King.
Cheerfully, Roge
"It's clearly a "dissolution into the Pleroma""
Silly Jordan, neither dust nor bunnies has anything to do with the Pleroma. Matter is DIRTY AND EVIL. ;)
My opinion is rather uninformed concerning his book and the finer points of his views, but he does conduct himself rather vitriolically in the following interview:
http://www.crlamppost.org/darkside.htm
I can't for the life of me find anything where he labels himself an atheist or non-atheist. Anyone got links?
I found this quote from the following podcast: http://media.libsyn.com/media/ihs/025-HNN_11_28_2007.mp3
Philip Pullman: Well, identifying oneself as anything, for a writer, for a novelist, is a perilous thing because then you find yourself acting as a spokesman for this cause or that cause. I have always tried to avoid saying "I am an agnostic", "I am an atheist", "I am a humanist", "I am an anything else" because that way you are limiting the way that your books are received. And I don't want to do that. I want to be a bit more democratic about it and let people discover for themselves what cause is being espoused, if a cause is indeed being espoused. And I suppose some of my stories do espouse a particular cause.
So I have always hesitated really before describing myself as anything and that includes "humanist."
However, I can tell you when I began to believe that there was probably not any supernatural influence on the course of world events and that was when I was a teenager. And I began to read a little bit of philosophy that I could understand and a bit about science too and came to the conclusion that probably the stories I have been told in church were not actually literally true. So I guess that my lack of religious belief dates from quite a long time ago, now over 40 years.
and
Yeah, that's correct that they are trying to organize a boycott. I think these people are...it's ridiculous. They never learn. They never learn that if you want to draw attention to a film to make everybody curious to go see it; then make a fuss about it. It always happens, every single time they try to do this.
They never learn. And the other thing they never seem to notice is that they are behaving exactly in the way I describe the religious authorities who have got their hands on political power as behaving. In other words they are repressing arguments, they are repressing freedom of speech, they are trying to prevent people from understanding things; they are doing exactly what I described in the book. It's not surprising that they are creating a fuss. But I do wonder that they never learn that the result is always the opposite of what they claim they want.
Matt Cherry (HNN): Well, maybe they'll actually have to read your books to learn they're acting in the way you describe, and I suspect many of them haven't read it.
Philip Pullman: Well, they dare not. They don't like to open their minds to things that are not exactly what they know their leader does.
Yeah, I have no real informed opinions on the books, but I can't say as how I've been terribly impressed by anything Pullman himself has said. He paints with a REALLY broad brush.
"So I'm caught between the words 'atheistic' and 'agnostic'. I've got no evidence whatever for believing in a God. But I know that all the things I do know are very small compared with the things that I don't know. So maybe there is a God out there. All I know is that if there is, he hasn't shown himself on earth.
But going further than that, I would say that those people who claim that they do know that there is a God have found this claim of theirs the most wonderful excuse for behaving extremely badly."
http://www.surefish.co.uk/culture/features/pullman_interview.htm
Ah, here we are. He calls himself an atheist, but a "church atheist," apparently in a New Yorker article:
http://northwesternwinds.blogspot.com/2005/12/phillip-pullman-church-of-england.html
I dunno; to me his rhetoric is a bit too "All Organized Religions Are Stupid" for my tastes.
Post a Comment