Philip Nel, a Professor of English, and Donna Freitas, a Professor of Religion, have each written separate responses to the criticisms mounted towards The Golden Compass film and the His Dark Materials books.
An open letter from Philip Nel, of Kansas State University, has been published on the official blog responding to an article by Snopes.com, an urban legends reference site, which claims the assertion that the Golden Compass film is "based on a series of books with anti-religious themes" to be "True."
Donna Freitas, of Boston University, has written an article on why Christians shouldn't fear Philip Pullman and his trilogy. Freitas, who is a co-author of the soon-to-be-released book Killing the Imposter God: Philip Pullman's Spiritual Imagination in His Dark Materials, which explores the spiritual and religious themes of the trilogy, contends that "as a scholar, a Christian, and someone who has read the trilogy more times than [she] can count,... the telos of Pullman's "His Dark Materials" is to save God, not kill him." She also writes of her experience with meeting Philip Pullman.
Philip Nel's Open Letter to Snopes.com
Dear Editors of Snopes.com,
I write to report an error in the Golden Compass entry.
You identify the claim that the Golden Compass film is "based on a series of books with anti-religious themes" as "True." A better answer would be either "False" or "It's a matter of debate." I teach Philip Pullman's series in my college-level Harry Potter class, and I teach the first book (The Golden Compass) in my Literature for Adolescents class.
One *can* interpret the novels as anti-religious, but only if you equate the institution with the religion. That is, if a corrupt church is synonymous with Christianity, then, yes, the books are anti-religious. However, if you see a corrupt church as a perversion of Christiainity, then you would be hard pressed to support the notion that the books are anti-religious. The church in Pullman's series is very clearly a flawed institution, and — unlike the church in the contemporary U.S. and U.K. — has the power to govern, to create laws, to impose punishments, and to fight wars. The critique of the church in Pullman's series is a critique of a human institution that seeks (wrongly) to impose its will on people's lives.
However, the His Dark Materials series is very invested in spirituality (in general) and Christianity (in particular). Some of its central characters are angels. Ultimately, the series ends up endorsing a Romantic or Transcendentalist notion of Christian fatih. Nature becomes the route to the divine. For Pullman's characters, heaven is when the soul becomes one with the universe.
To claim that the protagonists "kill God" is also false. The Authority dies while in the care of Will and Lyra, but the Authority is *not* the creator of the universe. He has falsely claimed to be the creator of the universe, but he is not the creator. If Christians understand God as Creator, then we cannot claim that this Authority is God: he is not a Creator. Also, he's not *killed* by Will and Lyra. He dies while they are trying to protect him. In sum, this scene is far more complex than your website portrays it.
Your entry should distinguish betwen the words of a character and the message of the author. To represent a certain point of view is not necessarily to endorse that point of view. So, for example, the quotation "every church is the same: control, destroy, obliterate every good feeling" (The Subtle Knife, p. 50) is taken out of context. Ruta Skadi — the "beautiful, proud, pitiless" Queen of the Witches and a former lover of Lord Asriel (p. 49) — makes this argument to convince the witches to support Lord Asriel, who, she notes "hates the Church" (p. 51). However, supporting Lord Asriel is a morally complex act. He is not a bad character, but nor is he a good character. We are to value his battle against the corrupt church, but not the means through which he wages that battle. He is sympathetic, but also ruthless; smart, but dangerous. So, while it's true that those words ("every church is the same…") appear in The Subtle Knife, it's not clear that they represent Pullman's position.
The His Dark Materials trilogy is a rich and complex work of fiction. Snopes.com is irresponsible to make the bold, broad claim that it's "True" that the series is anti-religious. Literature does not work that way. As Emily Dickinson wrote, "Tell all the Truth, but tell it slant — / Success in Circuit lies." Literature tells the truth slant; rarely does it make bold statements of policy. Some characters may do this — characters created by Philip Pullman, Don DeLillo, and Milan Kundera do make bold statements. But, as any smart reader knows, the character is not the author. To get at the "Truth" of a work of fiction, you need to read more carefully. You need to consider all quotations in context. For these reasons, I caution Snopes.com against making such claims. And I advise you to be more careful, subtle readers.
Sincerely yours,
Philip Nel
Associate Professor
Director, Program in Children's Literature
Kansas State University
Manhattan, KS 66506-6501
U.S.A.
www.ksu.edu/english/nelp
Donna Freitas: Christians Shouldn't Fear Philip Pullman and His Trilogy
As a scholar of religion, a liberal Christian (yes, we do exist), and a lover of great fantasy literature, I am deeply saddened by the growing wave of fearful-to-the-point-of-hysterical online chatter about Philip Pullman's "His Dark Materials" trilogy, which was sparked by the upcoming Dec. 7 release of the film version of the first book, "The Golden Compass."
Just last week my fellow Beliefnet blogger Rod Dreher fed the frenzy. His Crunchy Con post waxes poetically and mournfully about his "children losing God, especially before they have a firm hold on Him," particularly" to the work of a man who openly says he wishes to destroy God in the minds of his audience"--and thus, according to Dreher, who threatens to suck all the happiness out of life. Dreher ends with an insulting generalization about liberals, and how "because liberals refuse to take God seriously, [we] have trouble understanding people--Jews, Muslims, Christians and others--who do."
Give me a break.
I'm a liberal and I'm a Christian. I also take God seriously. Very. And so does Philip Pullman.
One of the things I love most about Pullman's trilogy (aside from the fact that it is one of the greatest literary treasures of our time) is the thought Pullman gives to God. Pullman spends more time--far more, I suspect--contemplating the divine, the nature of God, and how we conceive of our relationship to God than most Christians do in an entire lifetime. He has gifted us with a provocative, stunning fantasy that revels in the deepest of cosmic questions, and they are questions near and dear to the heart of Christianity.
And my contention, as a scholar, a Christian, and someone who has read the trilogy more times than I can count, is that the telos of Pullman's "His Dark Materials" is to save God, not kill him.
Take that, my fellow fearful Christians.
The soundbyte that everyone loves pulling from Pullman (so to speak), that his books "are about killing God," I would amend to say that his works actually are about challenging a certain corrupt, destructive image of a god-who-is-not-really-a-god at all--and I'd add that the "killing" he speaks of is not actually killing at all (but then, you need to read the books to find out why--do your homework, people).
Woven throughout "His Dark Materials" is a stunning retelling of salvation. So, yes, that soundbyte about killing God is a tasty tidbit to cycle and recycle all around, but it only succeeds in scaring Christian parents across America into "saving" their children from one of the best reading experiences that lies before them in their young lives. I suspect that Philip Pullman might rather introduce them to a vision of the divine that will speak to their lives and a generation next who craves a God for our times.
I know that's what he did for me. But then, I read the books. Did you?
Perhaps it's not so much that liberals don't take God seriously and therefore can't understand people who do, it's more that believers and the faithful who aren't afraid of challenges to traditional images of God and to interpretations of their faith's story and message, and who desire a lively dialogue about faith and not a pre-determined one--we get villainized as godless.
5 comments - Add yours
#1
I know many for whom this trilogy has brought more spirituality to their minds’ world. They are truly as spiritual as anti-authority.
# November 1, 2007 09:33 by Amyra
#2
A good response to this utter nonsense favourably repeated by people who haven’t read the books.
# November 1, 2007 13:23 by horst
#3
I really appreciated the response from Donna Freitas. A great deal of theology is in understanding and shaping interpretations to modern relevance.
And that blog she linked to...oh dear. I wish Snopes would quit milking the support they’re getting and do what their responsible name says they do.
# November 1, 2007 16:54 by Phit
#4
These are excellently articulated responses to the many unfounded claims many have levelled against the series. As a Christian myself, I agree with what they said and find that those who do object to these books are denying themselves a thought-provoking journey that will enhance their faith - not tarnish it.
# November 1, 2007 19:17 by cantado
#5
They should let it go already. It isn’t anti-christian.
# November 4, 2007 19:20 by Dark Fantasies