I just finished reading The Golden Compass

[Alysar]

Awesome, awesome book. And coincidently, I just saw the trailer (http://pdl.stream.aol.com/newline/gl/newline/trailers/GC/GoldenCompass_TSR1_High_dl.mov) for the movie this morning for the first time. That looks incredible too, although this is Hollywood we're talking about so I'm reserving judgment until I actually see it. They have a habit of taking great sci-fi and fantasy books and butchering them, and lets face it: this is a series that pisses off a lot of people. Lets hope this turns out to be another LotR (I'm hoping they let it be 2 - 2½ hours long).

A few minutes after I finished the book I called the bookstore at the mall I'm going to tomorrow and reserved The Subtle Knife.

[Gavin Sage]

I read the books years ago myself. The first book is far and away the best of the bunch. The others don't really live up to it, though the Subtle Knife is still good the last left me feeling somewhat let down. There's also a lot of commentary to be had about its underlying ideology being a total mess. However that comes more into play with the next two parts.

On the movie, looking thus far to be about right but the details must be seen first.

[J_Muller]

Great series. I've said it before, though, and I'll say it again:

Antagonists styled after Christians != ZOMG THIS AUTHOR THINKS CHRISTIANS ARE EVIL.

Just because Tolkein couldn't keep the anti-industrialism out of LotR doesn't mean every time a fantasy author writes an antagonist similar to a real-life group they're railing against that group.

[Gavin Sage]

Great series. I've said it before, though, and I'll say it again:

Antagonists styled after Christians != ZOMG THIS AUTHOR THINKS CHRISTIANS ARE EVIL.

Just because Tolkein couldn't keep the anti-industrialism out of LotR doesn't mean every time a fantasy author writes an antagonist similar to a real-life group they're railing against that group.

Well for those that have read:

I would say there are some seriously cliched attacks in there. And I have issues with a story that has God existing, but that he's really not God and is just some tyrant and then typically by extension "evil" is not so bad. And then in the end being ineffectual too. I think book underlies how a lot of people who claim to not believe in God are more angry then non-believeing. Since he essentially exists in it but there's a whole contrivance about how religion has lied to you to explain him being there but not being Him.

Also I've seen quote of Phillip Pullman calling the Chronicles of Narnia religous propaganda. Which isn't an unfair charge but I think put any sort of "its just story" lines in a rather compromised position since it rather makes His Dark Materials counter-propaganda

[J_Muller]

Well for those that have read:

I would say there are some seriously cliched attacks in there. And I have issues with a story that has God existing, but that he's really not God and is just some tyrant and then typically by extension "evil" is not so bad. And then in the end being ineffectual too. I think book underlies how a lot of people who claim to not believe in God are more angry then non-believeing. Since he essentially exists in it but there's a whole contrivance about how religion has lied to you to explain him being there but not being Him.

Also I've seen quote of Phillip Pullman calling the Chronicles of Narnia religous propaganda. Which isn't an unfair charge but I think put any sort of "its just story" lines in a rather compromised position since it rather makes His Dark Materials counter-propaganda

Feh. In any event, I didn't spot any counter-propaganda when I read the series, and even if I thought it were there I'm not about to ruin a perfectly good series by rereading it and finding the subtext.

[McDeath]

The Golden Compass? Isn't book one called Northern Lights? Maybe we have different releases (publishers, for some reason, like to release the same book with different names in the UK and the US). But yes, it's a good series with empathetic characters - even Mrs Coulter made my hert twinge at the end of The Subtle Knife. And there's no religious commentary in it, no sir. And if there is, I ain't admitting it, no sir.

[Dhavaer]

The Golden Compass? Isn't book one called Northern Lights? Maybe we have different releases (publishers, for some reason, like to release the same book with different names in the UK and the US). But yes, it's a good series with empathetic characters - even Mrs Coulter made my hert twinge at the end of The Subtle Knife. And there's no religious commentary in it, no sir. And if there is, I ain't admitting it, no sir.

It's called the Golden Compass in the US. A lot of books have different names when published in the US, for some reason.

[Jorkens]

Also I've seen quote of Phillip Pullman calling the Chronicles of Narnia religous propaganda. Which isn't an unfair charge but I think put any sort of "its just story" lines in a rather compromised position since it rather makes His Dark Materials counter-propaganda
I think that in both cases there's a distinction between the central metaphor and the values and morals that the authors hold. For instance, Narnia is unlikely to make anyone think "ZOMG Aslan is meant to be Jesus and in the books Aslan is true so in the real world Jesus must be true so I must become a christian!!!!!1" I think if anything, that's just letting you know what standpoint Lewis is coming from when he promotes certain values and ties them up with christianity.

Likewise, I think the 'moral message' of His Dark Materials is less to do with the basic setup which, for what it's worth, is a direct crib of the beliefs of Gnosticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism) so much as with which values and ways of behaving he imlicitly (or explicitly) approves and dissaproves of throughout the book - so cruelty and opression in the name of religion are bad, whereas thinking for yourself and valueing the experiences of life are good. Which is still propoganda, but arguably less controversial than "religion is bad, mmmkay."

You get this with all authors to some extent, deliberately or otherwise.

[BlueWizard]

My wife loves the trilogy, and is getting me to finish them. I like them so far. Though it is closer to Potter than LOTR in my opinion.

[LCR]

I read or better was read the Chronicles of Narnia and I didn't get the connection to religion at all.
I, too, can't say it damaged me since today I'm a determined atheist, so it didn't influence me in the long term.

[Alysar]

It's called the Golden Compass in the US. A lot of books have different names when published in the US, for some reason.

*COUGH*COUGH*Sorcerer'sStone*COUGH*

At least TGC doesn't change any text in the novel itself (I'm assuming)

clicky (http://img522.imageshack.us/img522/4227/knormalvz5.jpg)

[Gavin Sage]

Feh. In any event, I didn't spot any counter-propaganda when I read the series, and even if I thought it were there I'm not about to ruin a perfectly good series by rereading it and finding the subtext.

Well I'll spoiler it but for some rather big parts:

Some fairly direct attacks:

1. "God" is not absolute, but puts out the deception that he is.

2. "Satan" in the form of that female rebel angel leader, is wiser then "God" and saw through such deceptions which was the real reason behind the war in Heaven

3. Original Sin is sentience, freewill, and maturity.

4. Asriel gives at least one classic speech about "how much evil has been done in the name of religion" and other such standard atheistic arguments about how a "real God" wouldn't have let that happen.

The difference between Pullman and Lewis is there. Lewis says "this is the truth" while Pullman says "everything you've been told is a lie, this is the REAL truth". Lewis basically works from a blank slate, while Pullman puts pre-existing beliefs in and then states a higher truth over them. Yes I am arguably over simplifying and what someone does about such a difference is none of my concern. I would object to say, either book being banned from an English class on the propaganda grounds each has.

But there is definitely real world insinuations behind both. You don't have to follow those, but they are there all the same.

[Dr._Weird]

*COUGH*COUGH*Sorcerer'sStone*COUGH*

At least TGC doesn't change any text in the novel itself (I'm assuming)

clicky (http://img522.imageshack.us/img522/4227/knormalvz5.jpg)

To my knowledge, all that was done was changing exclusively british words like "Trolley" and possibly "Lift" etc.

Is that such a bad thing?

[Alysar]

To my knowledge, all that was done was changing exclusively british words like "Trolley" and possibly "Lift" etc.

Is that such a bad thing?

Not at all. Changing commonly used British words to the American equivalent like that is perfectly understandable.

I'm just referring to the fact that in the first Harry Potter book, they changed the name of the primary plot device (and the title of the book along with it), even though the original name has been around for centuries and the name they gave it was something they just made up.

In fact, I'm pleasantly surprised that they didn't change the name of the alethiometer in the US version of The Golden Compass.

[Closet_Skeleton]

alethiometer

But that doesn't make sense to British kids either...

Most adults won't get Skraelings. Most Skraeling won't get Skraelings. Though Tartars is more commonly used, few people will know who they are.

Philip Pullman is anti-authority. He just sees Religion as an easy target in his anti-authority book.

He basicaly says that Christianity is going to kill your emotions and the only good Catholic is a reformed Catholic. He does this mainly by not presenting a differant view. He also turns god into a geriatric lier and Satan into an afterthought added on at the end to make you not trust what governments say about rebels.

He claims to be more anti-authority than anti-religion and that may be his idealogy, but he allows his anti-religious sentiments to permeate his writing. The only non-religious authority he bashes are 'grown ups', which isn't something I'd want my children to be taught about.

The worst thing about Narnia is supposedly how the moment the WASP children go to a foreign country the natives put them in charge. At least, that's what someone was ranting about. The Jesus analogy is too common to take seriously.

[averagejoe]

You know, I notice that most of the specific references to Pullman's ideology come from the third book which, let's face it, wasn't very good, even not considering ideological whatnot. The magic was gone from that one, so far as I was concerned.

[J_Muller]

Well I'll spoiler it but for some rather big parts:

Some fairly direct attacks:

1. "God" is not absolute, but puts out the deception that he is.

2. "Satan" in the form of that female rebel angel leader, is wiser then "God" and saw through such deceptions which was the real reason behind the war in Heaven

3. Original Sin is sentience, freewill, and maturity.

4. Asriel gives at least one classic speech about "how much evil has been done in the name of religion" and other such standard atheistic arguments about how a "real God" wouldn't have let that happen.

The difference between Pullman and Lewis is there. Lewis says "this is the truth" while Pullman says "everything you've been told is a lie, this is the REAL truth". Lewis basically works from a blank slate, while Pullman puts pre-existing beliefs in and then states a higher truth over them. Yes I am arguably over simplifying and what someone does about such a difference is none of my concern. I would object to say, either book being banned from an English class on the propaganda grounds each has.

But there is definitely real world insinuations behind both. You don't have to follow those, but they are there all the same.

...why is it that authors have to go and spoil a perfectly good series by putting subtexts in things? LotR, Narnia, HDM... I enjoyed them much more before I found out there were subtexts.

[JadedDM]

From what I heard, they are removing all references to God and religion from the movie version, so as not to offend American viewers.

[Closet_Skeleton]

...why is it that authors have to go and spoil a perfectly good series by putting subtexts in things? LotR, Narnia, HDM... I enjoyed them much more before I found out there were subtexts.

Well, authors are obviously evil and only want to corrupt your innocent definition of art.

Subtexts exist because some people like to be clever, they like to put in things most people won't notice. They want to feel superior when people don't notice their subtexts. They also want to tell people about what they know.

The simple fact is that art isn't about enjoyment at all. Its about communication. All great artworks are saying something. Anybody who says that art is something utterly pereferal and exists only for beauty is being naive.

If you're going to communicate a story why not communicate something else as well? A lot of creative people are shy and don't get to talk about their real beliefs so they hide them amongst other things.

[Gavin Sage]

From what I heard, they are removing all references to God and religion from the movie version, so as not to offend American viewers.

Which is anything from a token effort already mostly done in the books with "The Authority" and such. Or there are zero plans to make the two other books into a movie however the first one fare. Or they are going to be rewriting major underpinnings of the plot.

Given Hollywood I know which one my money is on. Especially since its hard to get adults to go see a movie about a kid.

[Alysar]

But that doesn't make sense to British kids either...

Most adults won't get Skraelings. Most Skraeling won't get Skraelings. Though Tartars is more commonly used, few people will know who they are.


My point is that publishers tend to think that Americans are wusses when it comes to big words.



From what I heard, they are removing all references to God and religion from the movie version, so as not to offend American viewers.

In the trailer they show a bit of the conference scene from the beginning of the book and someone says "That's Blasphemy".

[JadedDM]

Link (http://www.bridgetothestars.net/index.php?p=weitzinterview)

New Line is a company that makes films for economic returns. You would hardly expect them to be anything else. They have expressed worry about the possibility of HDM’s perceived antireligiosity making it an unviable project financially. My job is to get the film made in such a way that the spirit of the piece is carried through to the screen, and to do that I must contend not only with the difficulties of the material but with the fears of the studio. Needless to say, all my best efforts will be directed towards keeping HDM as liberating and iconoclastic an experience as I can. But there may be some modification of terms. You will probably not hear of the "Church" but you will hear of the Magisterium. Those who will understand will understand. I have no desire to change the nature or intentions of the villains of the piece, but they may appear in more subtle guises.

[blade_runner]

I read that book in 5'th grade, most confusing thing I ever read. It was good though.

[Nerzi]

First read Northern Lights (The Golden Compass for you yanks :P)when I was about ooof 9 or so, understood it fine and loved it to pieces, still do. It's just brilliant. Definitely the best in a brilliant series.
It's especially awesome if you know Oxford well, which I kinda do. I love visiting the museum described in the subtle knife, it really is an awesome place, and they have a 'golden compass' in there with lots of wierd figures on, looks pretty much like an alethiometer.

[blade_runner]

I understood the story fine, but my dumb brain likes to overthink everything. All the possible "commentary" sent it into a meltdown. I did love it though, no doubt about that.

[dehro]

Great series. I've said it before, though, and I'll say it again:

Antagonists styled after Christians != ZOMG THIS AUTHOR THINKS CHRISTIANS ARE EVIL.

Just because Tolkein couldn't keep the anti-industrialism out of LotR doesn't mean every time a fantasy author writes an antagonist similar to a real-life group they're railing against that group.

soooo true..every word...

[Dragonrider]

...why is it that authors have to go and spoil a perfectly good series by putting subtexts in things? LotR, Narnia, HDM... I enjoyed them much more before I found out there were subtexts.

One of my favorite things about LotR is Tolkien's specific insistance that it is NOT "allegorical". He's very vehement that there's a different between "applicibility and allegory", that one is in the mind of the reader (who can't help but draw parallels between what he/she reads and his/her own life) and the other is the "intent of the author". And although there are going to be parallels to the real world because the author (and the readers) are LIVING in that world (usually), he states clearly that LotR is in no way meant to preach any specific message (beyond that of good vs. evil, which is integral to fantasy anyway) to readers.

I do find books that moralize to be fairly irritating, and I didn't really enjoy the 3rd HDM book as much. The first one was original and interesting, the second confusing but cool (I was 11 when I read them, I think...) and the third irritated me a little.

The whole "God" thing...well, to begin with, the books were only attacking the church, and only whatever church it was in that book. Maybe Philip Pullman had just read the DaVinci Code. I don't know. If God is a fake, then God must not be God, right? It didn't bother me too much. I loved the idea of the daemons (how cool is that, huh?) and the books weren't too bad, but the blatent message did annoy

[Gaelbert]

I've read the entire series. I heard some things about it beforehand, which led me to shut off the subtext connections that my brain usually tries to root out. I think I enjoyed it much more my way than I would have otherwise, but I would have to reread the series through the subtext view in order to make a true comparison, and I don't really feel like doing that right now.

[skreweded]

Congrats. I loved this series, and just happen to be rereading it for the movie. I am honestly loving it more than before. If you want to talk about it once you finish the series, send me a PM, i would love to talk about it. But I dont want to spoil it. :smallbiggrin: