rohina at shaw.ca
Fri Mar 15 12:08:55 EST 2002
>I believe <whoever it was--Philip?> was referring to the rather nasty,
>unpleasant view of God (or "God," possibly) put forth by Pullman, with the
>actions He does. It made me feel quite ooky.
I thought this was a metaphor or allegory for the way that established
churches grow up and obscure the original deity with more human concerns
like ambition and heirarchy. Kind of like Pratchett in Small Gods.
>Plus, there was all the wacky
>stuff about virginity and innocence and...basically, I really loved these
>books and was hugely impressed by them, until my other sci-fi discussion
>list brought up all sorts of interesting points/problems which I hadn't
>considered. And then I felt ooky.
I have to say the "wacky stuff about virginity and innocence" was a fairly
straight down the line 19th century viewpoint in a lot of ways. It accorded
with a lot of the other parts of the book, and I think you'd have a hard
time arguing it was anti-christian in any sort of historical context.
I think there may be a distinction between feeling ooky and not being
christian in outlook, which was more my question. There was a lot about the
books that I found disturbing (the bit where Lyra nearly gets separated
from her daemon really creeped me out); but I think that was one of the
strengths of the books, rather than the opposite. Without the disturbing
elements they wouldn't have been nearly as effective.
To unsubscribe, email dwj-request at suberic.net with the body "unsubscribe".
Visit the archives at http://suberic.net/dwj/list/
More information about the Dwj