Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Pullman (was Re: Lucy, Galadriel, and Temptation)

Expand Messages
  • Lynn Maudlin
    Jason, it almost sounds like you re saying everyone of us has our own distinct, unique world... or have I completely misunderstood you? I have read Pullman
    Message 1 of 38 , Dec 13, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Jason, it almost sounds like you're saying everyone of us has our own
      distinct, unique world... or have I completely misunderstood you?

      I have read Pullman interviewed where that's *exactly* what he says,
      he wants to 'evangelize' atheism. Just as I expect Jewish parents to
      be cautious about CSL & Narnia, I expect parents of faith to be
      cautious about Pullman's work.

      Happily we are all free to appreciate (or not) any and every book in
      any way we choose. We can like one for exactly the same thing we
      dislike in another; that's okay.

      -- Lynn --


      --- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, Jason Fisher <visualweasel@...> wrote:
      >
      >But remember that this isn't "our" world, really; it's first of all
      >Mary Malone's world; underneath that, Pullman's; and after that, each
      >individual reader's. Even when he's writing about the "real" world
      >(the universe we know, to paraphrase his introductory note to HDM) in
      >The Subtle Knife and The Amber Spyglass, I think it's still important
      >to remember that we're looking through a series of perceptual lenses
      >(not inappropriate, considering the Amber Spyglass itself). I have no
      >problem accepting Mary Malone's story. Now you might raise a question
      >as to the credibility of the psychology of Mary Malone, but I think
      > one might easily do the same of the characters in Narnia, no?
      >
      > > But Pullman clearly presents it as his own judgment on
      > > Christianity in our world -- a judgment he wants his readers
      > > to share.
      >
      > Does he? May I ask why you say this? Do you see HDM as "reverse
      evangelism"?
      >
      > And allow me to turn the tables: couldn't one describe Lewis's
      Chronicles of Narnia in the same words: "[Lewis] clearly presents it
      as his own judgment of Christianity in our world [with the obvious
      difference that he is for it, where one can argue that Pullman is
      against it] -- a judgment he wants his readers to share." It seems you
      appreciate Lewis for this, but not Pullman. True? And is the only
      difference, then, the fantasy setting? Or is it a resonance with your
      own beliefs in the one case, but not in the other? I'm genuinely
      curious, because I've been hearing a lot of this kind of criticism lately.
      >
      > Jason
      >
    • Marc Drayer
      I m afraid I misspelled the second URL. Here is the right one: http://credenda.org/issues/18-2liturgia.php ... tend ... of ... or ... Peter ... two ... assume
      Message 38 of 38 , Dec 16, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        I'm afraid I misspelled the second URL. Here is the right one:

        http://credenda.org/issues/18-2liturgia.php


        --- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, "Marc Drayer" <mdrayer2001@...>
        wrote:
        >
        > I agree. It's a fault of modern Christian publishing, that they
        tend
        > to be so shallow and preachy, and usually languish on the shelves
        of
        > Christian bookstores. Are there no Lewises, Tolkiens, C. Williams
        or
        > Dostoyevskys left in the world? Or are Donald T. Williams and
        Peter
        > Leithard right when they say evangelicals can't write, as these
        two
        > aritcles tell us?
        >
        > Williams:
        >
        > http://doulomen.tripod.com/topics/DTWtopics_cantwrite.htm
        >
        > Leithard:
        >
        > http://credenda.org/issues/18-21iturgia.php
        >
        > Under the Mercy,
        > Marc Drayer
        >
        >
        > --- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, "Diane Joy Baker" <dbaker021@>
        > wrote:
        > >
        > > I read Jenkins and LeHaye. Bleah. Cardboard characters all
        > through. Vecchh!
        > >
        > > ----- Original Message -----
        > > From: Lynn Maudlin
        > > To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
        > > Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 6:23 PM
        > > Subject: [mythsoc] Pullman (was Re: Lucy, Galadriel, and
        > Temptation)
        > >
        > >
        > > Like Carl, I was put off by the pot-boileresque prose of the
        > LaHaye-
        > > Jenkins books (I actually read the first one - bleah - I
        assume
        > they
        > > didn't appreciably improve). And I'm also put off by folks who
        > > rewrite history but present it as true... you know, how JFK
        was
        > > assassinated by a high-powered hunting crossbow? I just hate
        all
        > > this stuff about bullets and rifles...
        > >
        > > -- Lynn --
        > >
        > > --- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, "Carl F. Hostetter"
        <Aelfwine@>
        > > wrote:
        > > >
        > > > --- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, Jason Fisher <visualweasel@>
        > wrote:
        > > > >
        > > > > Carl,
        > > > >
        > > > > > Isn't a book that is overtly _antagonistic_ to a
        worldview
        > > > > > that is held (and held dear) by a very large number of
        > > > > > people, naturally more likely to be off-putting, even
        > simply
        > > > > > in _tone_, than one that is _apologetic_ for that
        worldview
        > > > > > (and further not itself overtly antagonistic towards
        those
        > > > > > who believe otherwise) -- whether one shares that
        worldview
        > > > > > or not?
        > > > >
        > > > > Yes, I would say so, as a general rule. Although with the
        > caveat
        > > that an apologetic work
        > > > > may be perceived by some as unwelcome proselytism.
        > > >
        > > > Yes, but even so, "unwelcome proselytism" is not the same
        > thing as
        > > polemic. And whatever
        > > > Pullman says, I've been given enough reason to believe that
        > his
        > > series _is_ polemical,
        > > > particularly the third book, even by those who enjoyed the
        > series
        > > (except for the third
        > > > book, not coincidentally) and were not themselves religious.
        > > >
        > > > > Or to take a more extreme example, there is Tim LaHaye's
        > Left
        > > Behind series. I know
        > > > > these books offend many non-Christians in much the same
        way
        > > Pullman offends
        > > > > Christians (though I have not read them).
        > > >
        > > > I don't doubt it. Personally, I was "offended" by the
        > amazingly
        > > bad prose in the sample of
        > > > the first chapter of the first book that is all I've read of
        > the
        > > series.
        > > >
        > > > > And the flip side again, I know that Dan Brown's The Da
        > Vinci
        > > Code (which I hear, but do
        > > > > know first-hand, is a dreadful novel), again, offends many
        > > Christians.
        > > >
        > > > What "offended" me about this book, in addition to Brown's
        > very
        > > very bad writing, was the
        > > > bald-faced lies about actual history he told, after going
        out
        > of
        > > his way to assure his
        > > > readers that his "facts" are all true. It's one thing to
        write
        > > fictions. It's quite another to urge
        > > > your readers to believe that they are not!
        > > >
        > > > > > Further on this topic: I find it odd to see an apparent
        > > attitude
        > > > > > that a work of fiction set in another world must be
        > regarded
        > > > > > as not having anything to say about our world.
        Particularly
        > > > > > on this list!
        > > > >
        > > > > Did I say that? To whom are you responding, Carl?
        > > >
        > > > No, this was not addressed to you (that's what I tried to
        > convey,
        > > poorly, by prefixing
        > > > "further on this topic"). It was in reaction to John's
        comment
        > > earlier in the thread that:
        > > >
        > > > > I suspect others have the reverse problem with Pullman;
        they
        > > read his fantasy as if he
        > > > > were writing a realistic novel about our world, and react
        > > accordingly.
        > > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.