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

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

Expand Messages
  • Lynn Maudlin
    I wouldn t describe that (what you reference, below) as fundamentalist Christianity - I d describe it as political Christianity, specifically the era when
    Message 1 of 38 , Dec 14, 2007
      I wouldn't describe that (what you reference, below)
      as "fundamentalist Christianity" - I'd describe it as political
      Christianity, specifically the era when The Church (usually the
      Roman Church - sorry, no slur intended) rivaled the various heads of
      state for power and earthly authority. The concept "separation of
      church and state" hadn't yet been birthed--!

      In 20th century language, "fundamentalist Christianity" means people
      who take the Bible very seriously, if not literally.

      Into clarity and "defining our terms"--
      -- Lynn --

      --- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, Jason Fisher <visualweasel@...>
      wrote:
      >
      > I would say that one has to be careful about "which Christianity"
      one is talking about. Let me clarify: I think Pullman is primarily
      objecting to the Christianity of the Spanish Inquisition, the
      Crusades, the Machiavellian machinations of the Holy Roman Empire,
      and so forth. In other words, an extreme aspect of a more
      fundamentalist interpretation of Christianity. As he acknowledges in
      one of the quotations I recently gave, there is much that is good
      about Christianity as well, if taken as a whole. The portrait of it
      in The Golden Compass is much more medieval and calculating, a
      political force rather than a religious one. Now in The Amber
      Spyglass (of which my recollections are much dimmer), he confronts a
      more modern image of Christianity, in the person of Mary Malone, and
      I would want to read that book again before I commented further on
      what he may or may not be saying through her (if, in fact, she is to
      be taken as a straightforward mouthpiece).
      >
      > So, yes, you're right in one sense, but perhaps mistaken in
      another. I don't think Pullman means to say that Christianity taken
      as a whole is absolutely wrong, but he is decrying much that has
      been done in the name of Christianity. And yes, he himself does
      probably believe it to be "inimical to reason", as you say -- but
      does he encode that belief so clearly in his triology? I think it's
      a debatable point.
      >
      > 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
        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.