XPost: alt.atheism, alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, rec.arts.books   
   XPost: rec.arts.movies.current-films, rec.arts.sf.written   
   From: hayesmstw@hotmail.com   
      
   On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 14:05:44 -0800, Dgates  wrote:   
      
   >   
   >This was a very interesting article.  I'll try not to quote too much   
   >of it.   
   >   
   >   
   >On 9 Dec 2004 06:11:51 -0800, weiler214@hotmail.com wrote:   
   >   
   >>The Impoverished Imagination   
   >>Why Good Fantasy Must Stem from Reality   
   >>By Gina R. Dalfonzo   
   >>   
   >>Philip Pullman's fantasy series His Dark Materials may not be a   
   >>household name yet, but...   
   >   
   >[snip]   
   >   
   >>A Pointless Plot...   
   >   
   >[snip]   
   >   
   >>The Fundamental Flaw...   
   >>   
   >>Pullman's fundamental flaw is that he displays no belief in sin...   
   >   
   >[snip]   
   >   
   >   
   >The entire article was interesting, whether I agree with it all or   
   >not.  I think the "fundamental flaw" in the article is that it lumps   
   >together two things that don't seem connected to me:   
   >   
   >1. some narrative problems with Pullman's books, and   
   >2. a theory that those problems stem from Pullman not believing in   
   >"sin" (presumably, as defined by the bible).   
   >   
   >   
   >Mind you, I really enjoyed the books, but I can still see their flaws.   
   >I think that when you've got a book where characters change motivation   
   >halfway through, or where the reader spends many chapters without   
   >knowing what a character is trying to accomplish, those are real   
   >flaws.   
   >   
   >But I don't know that those flaws have anything to do with a "lack of   
   >belief in sin."   
      
   The review does point out that the narrative problems are not necessarily   
   linked to the worldview of the writer, that Christian authors have written   
   some very bad books, and atheist authors like Pullman have written some very   
   good ones.   
      
   But what might be worth exploring further is the relationship between the   
   author's worldview and the fantasy genre. One cannot blame an author, and   
   especially a fantasy author, who sets a story in different worlds, for being   
   influenced by their omn worldview. Clearly the worlds that Lewis and Tolkien   
   create are shaped by their own worldview.   
      
   Is it this that makes their books successful?   
      
   I doubt it.   
      
   I've read other books written by authors with a Christian worldview -- Stephen   
   Lawhead, for example -- and their books are trite and suffer from the same   
   (and worse) narrative problems as Pullman's ones. I read one of Lawhead's   
   books, and thought "Never again". It was too banal and boring, and full of   
   embarrassing inconsistencies (rivers running uphill, without the author   
   apparently being aware of it, and having no discernible connection with the   
   plot. With Pullman's books, I at least managed to finish the HDM trilogy, and   
   found it quite enjoyable in parts. I haven't felt much temptation  to read it   
   again, however, though every time a new Harry Potter book comes out I reread   
   the whole series.   
      
   So if Pullman's work stands or falls on the "awareness of sin", how do the   
   Harry Potter books fare in this respect? They are probably a great deal more   
   popular than Pullman's books. I've read them several times. I've read the   
   Narnia books several times. I've read "The Lord of the rings" several times.   
   I've read Ursula le Guin's Earthsea trilogy three times, though with   
   diminishing enjoyment each time, and found the fourth book, Tehanu, horribly   
   dull. But I'm not much tempted to read Pullman's books again.   
      
   The review touches on the reasons for this -- the motivations of the   
   characters are all over the place, and there are too many inconsistencies in   
   the narrative. If the author has a worldview at all, it seems to be informed   
   by Gnosticism rather than Christianity or atheism, but that might not have   
   been a problem if he had handled it better. Perhaps the critics who like   
   Pullman are looking for a champion of their worldview who will express it   
   convincingly in fantasy fiction, but I think they must needs wait a little   
   longer, because in Pullman it doesn't come off.   
      
   HDM may be compared to Clive Barker's "Imajica", which has similar plot   
   inconsistencies, and unexplained elements and motivations. It ends up like   
   John Masefield's "Odtaa". I recently reread that one, because I had forgotten   
   what it was about, and when I finally got through it the second time, I   
   wondered why I had bothered.   
      
   Bit what I would like to see in this thread is something from someone who has   
   actually *read* the books, and can explain, in a coherent way, why they   
   disagree with the evaluation of the review that started it. Not just   
   dismissing it in a rant (which it isn't, though most of the dismissals have   
   beem hysterical rants of the "I'm going to read the book nya nya nya nya nya"   
   type). I would like to see something that one can get one's teeth into,   
   showing where they think the review is wrong, for example. One person who   
   complained about it said it was part of a "conservative pogrom" -- but failed   
   to explain exactly how it was that, but just muttered dark incantations along   
   the lines of "Wait and see".   
      
   Are there any *intelligent* Pullman fans out there who have actually *read*   
   the books and can explain where they think the review goes wrong?   
      
   --   
   Steve Hayes   
   E-mail: hayesmstw@hotmail.com   
   Web: http://www.geocities.com/hayesstw/stevesig.htm   
        http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/books.htm   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)