• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

Why I'm annoyed by The Golden Compass

christofu

Pavement Inspector
Joined
Jun 28, 2002
Location
Spokane, WA
Moto(s)
CRF450 motor in a RS125 chassis!
More specifically, I'm annoyed at the hard-core Christian groups who are condemning the movie and who have (a) not seen it; (b) not read the books; and (c) not engaged their brains.

The central premise of the series by Philip Pullman: free choice good. Pullman goes on to examine this through an exposition of what is basically gnostic dogma. Note, that's gnostic... not agnostic. Look up gnosticism at Wikipedia.

A short summary of gnosticism is that there IS a supreme being out there somewhere, usually an embodiment of good. However (and here's the difference between gnosticism and Abhrahamic religions), there is another "demi" god that is closer to our world. In different variations of gnosticism, this demiurge may or may not know that there is a superior being (i.e. they may believe that THEY are THE god). In different variations, the demiurge can be good, evil or merely incompetent.

OK. So in His Dark Materials, Pullman has a "god figure" called The Authority. I say "god figure" because it is exposed in later books that The Authority is, in fact, the first angel created and not a god. The series evolves into being about overthrowing The Authority and his church (The Magisterium) which has yoked humanity.

A few thoughts on this.

Surely it is a good thing that free-willed humans would overthrow a false god? No?

There is no mention of the gnostic supreme being in the series. Except one. One very, very big mention. The name of the series is "HIS DARK MATERIALS". Who's dark materials? What? Could it be... that the entire series is about a plan put in place by a supreme being to have humans overthrow The Authority as the false god that he is? Why else would it be called "HIS DARK MATERIALS"? There is no other link to this title anywhere in the series.

Dust. I've seen people talking about dust. If The Authority is not our God, is Dust? Who knows. It's fiction. It certainly would be not inconsistent that Dust is an agent of the supreme being though. Dust is represented as being a sentient force that is beneficial to thinking beings. Dust may be just one of His dark materials.

I'm annoyed by the reaction of Christians to the books, and to the movie.

"Blasphemy! They kill God!" The Authority is a false god. Just one of His dark materials. If The Authority was written as being physically red in color, with bat wings, a forked tail, carried a trident, had horns and breathed fire, everyone would rejoice that people would not worship him.

"Blasphemy! The afterlife isn't all virgins, beer drinking and hockey." Who's to say in Philip Pullman's works what happens after the trapped souls come back into the world and dissolve? Just as there is no mention of a supreme being except in the title of the series, there is no analysis of what actually happens after the souls no longer exist in the world except that they "no longer exist."

"Blasphemy! Philip Pullman is an atheist, and he's trying to corrupt our children!" If your children's faith is so weak and your influence on your children is so small that they cannot stand the test of a work of fiction then perhaps you should reexamine your whole situation. By the way, I am also an atheist but unfortunately I'm all out of fresh babies to throw into my blender for my morning baby smoothie, so I'm probably going to get thrown out of the atheist union now.

His Dark Materials is a work of fiction. Actually, I believe it's a very good work of fiction. I'll admit that even I got a bit misty-eyed in places. It should be enjoyed as a work of fiction.
 
I agree with you, but I understand why these christian groups are so pissed, as he's stated explicitly that his goal in writing those books is to undermine the christian faith.
 
I agree with you, but I understand why these christian groups are so pissed, as he's stated explicitly that his goal in writing those books is to undermine the christian faith.

*cough*

Actually, his stated goal was to write counter-propaganda to the Narnia series, which is not the same as setting out to undermine Christianity. In this case, the counter-propaganda is presented as "think for yourself. Act for yourself. Don't just go along with what you're told because everyone else does." The books may make people think about the organizations that generally run Christianity, because in His Dark Materials the primary religious organization is generally portrayed as being evil. However, don't forget that it IS a work of fiction.

That is interpreted as being an attempt to undermine Christianity. However, I actually read the books and I didn't detect ANY attempt to undermine Christianity, as in faith in Jesus. In fact, there is not a single mention of actual Abrahamic religion in the entire series. The Magisterium is NOT Christianity... they worship The Authority, a false god.

I did detect strong criticism of organized religion and organized religious dogma. That is not the same.
 
I don't know. I was really pissed that Jesus wasn't mentioned in The Lord of the Rings. :mad
 
  • Like
Reactions: V4
Firstly ill say that before this movie came out i'd never even heard of Pullman. The first mention of it to me was from the parish priest at Mass. Apparently this guy didnt like C.S. Lewis (or his writing, not sure which, either way he said that Chronicles of Narnia is devoid of love, mysogynistic and racist, which shows me he's reading it rather oddly) and wanted to create the anti-thesis to his "Chronicles of Narnia" which immediately got me thinkin of the parallels the trilogy would have with bad Christian rock.

I have seen the movie and thought it was horrible, the most horrible part being when they compared it to Lord of the Rings, which it was so far away from as to make the polar setting a befitting parallel to the lush New Zealand greens of LOTR (yes i know there was a snowy scene in LOTR :twofinger ). It felt very disjointed and hurried, and it seemed that certain parts tried to compensate for those two things by throwing in information that seemed more crammed that rosie odonell's sandwiches.

I did like Kidman and the little girl's acting but they seem to have been held back by the script, and judging from the reviews on IMDB and Amazon (the books have some movie reviews lol) they chopped the book up so much that it barely resembles the movie, which is a shame, but at least atheists have something to be pissed at hollywood about now:twofinger

My two beef's with him, and not necessarily his books overall (though to me it is hard to reasonably seperate a man from his thoughts) is that he chose to name his authoritative church dealy the "Magesterium" which is the teaching authority of the Catholic Church. Out of the huge amount of words in the dictionary that could have been used, not to mention the ones he could have came up with, he used "Magesterium". Either he is very un-inventive or he has some beef with the church. The second was a quote I heard from him that went something like "I want to kill God in the minds of little children" or something to that effect. That is a sad quote, but furthermore after saying something so definitive he cannot complain if people take his "childrens" fantasy to be somewhat atheistic or at least God-hating. It is not our job (the public) to clarify his statements.

Also you cannot say that the people denouncing the books have not read them because you simply dont know. That they came to certain conclusions different from yours does not prove anything, otherwise it is in my right to reasonably say that Pullman never read Chronicles of Narnia because he says they are devoid of love, which they are most certainly not, or he is changing the definition of love to something way off its already broad meaning.
 
Last edited:
*cough*

Actually, his stated goal was to write counter-propaganda to the Narnia series, which is not the same as setting out to undermine Christianity. In this case, the counter-propaganda is presented as "think for yourself. Act for yourself. Don't just go along with what you're told because everyone else does." The books may make people think about the organizations that generally run Christianity, because in His Dark Materials the primary religious organization is generally portrayed as being evil. However, don't forget that it IS a work of fiction.

That is interpreted as being an attempt to undermine Christianity. However, I actually read the books and I didn't detect ANY attempt to undermine Christianity, as in faith in Jesus. In fact, there is not a single mention of actual Abrahamic religion in the entire series. The Magisterium is NOT Christianity... they worship The Authority, a false god.

I did detect strong criticism of organized religion and organized religious dogma. That is not the same.

Hey, I just said I understand. I'm agreeing with you, remember? Even as a devout Christian, I think that, as you said, if our faith can't stand up to one work of fiction by a two-bit author, we've got bigger problems than a mere boycott can solve.

HOWEVER, I must tell you that "Magesterium" is the word used by the Roman church to collectively refer to the office of the Pope and the College of Cardinals. Pullman is definitely grinding some sort of axe here, that much is painfully obvious.
 
I don't know. I was really pissed that Jesus wasn't mentioned in The Lord of the Rings. :mad


Dood, that was different book, you're thinking "Lord of the Cross".
 
I did like Kidman and the little girl's acting but they seem to have been held back by the script, and judging from the reviews on IMDB and Amazon (the books have some movie reviews lol) they chopped the book up so much that it barely resembles the movie, which is a shame, but at least atheists have something to be pissed at hollywood about now:twofinger

From the tidbits I've read the movie is pro-spirituality, anti-organized religion. Atheists are not spiritual. Nor do we ever get worked up about some movie.

Religious types can't seem to go more than a couple months without having an aneurysm over some sort of entertainment thing though, be it a book, a play, a tv show, a movie, or whatever.
 
Religious types can't seem to go more than a couple months without having an aneurysm over some sort of entertainment thing though, be it a book, a play, a tv show, a movie, or whatever.

What I'm going to have an aneurysm about is how you are automatically assuming that ALL religious types go ape over this shit. The vast majority don't give a damn.
 
Anything that casts the slightest doubt upon the tenants of a religion and the control it exerts on it's followers is a threat to that religion. That religion turns around and attacks that threat(with the blessing of their "god behind it".

Thats the cause of a good portion of the suffering on this planet.

Just remember religion is only about control and power...
 
What I'm going to have an aneurysm about is how you are automatically assuming that ALL religious types go ape over this shit. The vast majority don't give a damn.

I'm fairly 100% completely and totally positive that I didn't even remotely suggest "all" religious types in what I wrote. You assumed that to fit your own personal agenda.
 
Anything that casts the slightest doubt upon the tenants of a religion and the control it exerts on it's followers is a threat to that religion. That religion turns around and attacks that threat(with the blessing of their "god behind it".

Thats the cause of a good portion of the suffering on this planet.

Just remember religion is only about control and power...

Wow. Please, for once, think originally. Is it really that hard to do? The vast majority of the suffering on this planet is caused by jerks who want power and don't care who they step on to get it. Sure, alot of them do it in the name of "God," but do you think they would just throw in the towel if they didn't have that excuse? No. They'd find another.

And I don't want to hear about most wars are fought over religion and other nonsense like that. Most wars are fought over resources. The people who control such matters are FAR too pragmatic to incur the incredible expense of war over something as ineffable as an idea. If they weren't that pragmatic, they wouldn't have risen to power, or at least won't last very long. Sure, the idea can be used as the excuse, and often is, as it's a great motivator, but the true reason is nearly always practical.

The Crusades, for instance. They were really about controlling the Mediterranean, and the trade routes to the far east. The French and English were sick and tired of the Italians' economic dominance, so they decided to kick the Muslims out of the fertile crescent and take over prime port territory. What luck that the area they were going to take over was the land of Jesus and all that crap! Now they wouldn't even have to TRY to conscript! The unwashed peasants would hurl themselves into the fray, almost unbidden. But is it any coincidence that some of the richest port cities in the history of the ancient world, such as Tyre, Byblos, Sidon, and Ashkelon, were ALSO in the "Holy Land?" Tel Aviv is STILL an important port in the Med.

Bottom line, people will kill each other like gangbusters with or without an excuse.
 
Last edited:
I'm fairly 100% completely and totally positive that I didn't even remotely suggest "all" religious types in what I wrote. You assumed that to fit your own personal agenda.

You also didnt qualify your statement as to what 'religious types' means. Dr Evil may have jumped the gun but you didnt help either with being so vague.

And why should 'religious types' not have an 'aneurysm' about something they believe in so dearly when it is attacked. Its funny because religion gets attacked whether it is sheep or a wolf. Whether we act out or take it in the gut we are berated by silly people who metaphysically cant even say that one is better than the other, only what is convenient to them at the time.
 
Have all the fits you want, I'm just tired of hearing about them.

I was simply correcting the error in your statement. Spirituality IS religion. So the Golden Compass, if you choose to view it as an attack, is an attack by one religion on another.

Leave the atheists out of your poo flinging.


Its funny because religion gets attacked whether it is sheep or a wolf.

And 99 times out of 100 it is by another religious group (like this movie/book). :thumbup
 
Last edited:
Have all the fits you want, I'm just tired of hearing about them.

I was simply correcting the error in your statement. Spirituality IS religion. So the Golden Compass, if you choose to view it as an attack, is an attack by one religion on another.

Leave the atheists out of your poo flinging.




And 99 times out of 100 it is by another religious group (like this movie/book). :thumbup

1. Thank you for likening of reasonable criticism of things to a wal-mart brat crying for a toy. It truly shows your colors.
2. You didnt correct ANYTHING I said. Go read the reviews on Amazon and IMDB for YOURSELF. CUS I MEAN YOU GOTTA THINK FOR YOURSELF HUH!?!?!. sigh...
3. Thanks for doing exactly what you got all wet about Dr. Evil doing:thumbup
 
Of course they will condemn it without seeing it, all hardcore Christians need to know is that it's not straight out of the Bible verbatim, or according to one of the approved interpretations from the Church.

It's a common theme within organized religion that "different = bad" Where else do you think organized religions get their staying power?

Stefan
 
Last edited:
Back
Top