Quote from: QuireIt's a style issue, and it's something I can't get round. Less is more - to me - and Dark Materials is written as the absolute opposite of that. Which is very frustrating, because I love the ideas and I love the themes. 'Like trying to eat treacle with my eyes' is the phrase I've used before to describe the effort to read the books.

I've yet to see the film, but hope that it can bypass the issues I have with the prose.

- Q

I once read a brutal excoriation of Hemingway for the exact opposite reason.  I personally don't mind a few extra words (hence this sentance) or even five dollar words. I also don't mind Hemmingway's simple declarative sentances.

What I dislike are the praised hacks, the guys that repeat the same character's name a dozen+ times on the same page, the guys who mangle the basics of the language at least once a chapter.  Then again, I'm easy, as long as my eyes don't bleed while reading it I don't even notice, and even if they do I'll be more forgiving if I like the story underneath...  That's me, slut of the library.

Quote from: SpikeI once read a brutal excoriation of Hemingway for the exact opposite reason.  I personally don't mind a few extra words (hence this sentance) or even five dollar words. I also don't mind Hemmingway's simple declarative sentances.

Coincidentally, my wife and I were discussing this very topic the other night.  She pulled For Whom the Bell Tolls off the shelf and was ooh-ing and ahh-ing over the prose.  We both agreed that Hemmingway's writing is often mistaken for being "simplistic", when in fact it is just simple -- simple and elegant.  And "elegant" isn't a word I use lightly.

Yeah, Pullman's prose did wax a little fraught as The Golden Compass wore on, but it lacked the thesaurian hyperbole of, say, Stephen R. Donaldson.

!i!

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaCoincidentally, my wife and I were discussing this very topic the other night.  She pulled For Whom the Bell Tolls off the shelf and was ooh-ing and ahh-ing over the prose.  We both agreed that Hemmingway's writing is often mistaken for being "simplistic", when in fact it is just simple -- simple and elegant.  And "elegant" isn't a word I use lightly.

!i!

For whom the Bell Tolls is a fucking fantastic book.

Quote from: pspahnYeah, but who really cares what they do?  They're kind of like Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition--you know they're out there protesting something, but is anyone paying attention?  Hell, they couldn't even stop Harry Potter from becoming a household name.  

Pete

Very true. All these far out nutjobs manage to do is tear a little support away from their own cause, then fade into obscurity.

I haven't seen the movie yet, but based on every other experience I've had with this sort of thing, I think they should have stayed true to the book and not had an agenda at all, for one way or the other. Controversy, while entertaining at first, gets annoying very quickly.

Quote from: QuireIt is entirely subjective, and reflects more where I'm at than anything wrong with the approach.

- Q

Wow, this simple phrase could be used to classify so many different things. I'm going to write that down somewhere. Bravo.

Quote from: AosFor whom the Bell Tolls is a fucking fantastic book.

Do not ask for whom the bell tolls, for more than likely it is the neighbor looking to see if he can borrow your plumber's snake to unclog his toilet, which he suspects his son has flushed his daughter's Rainbow Brite doll down.

Quote from: pspahnYeah, but who really cares what they do?  They're kind of like Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition--you know they're out there protesting something, but is anyone paying attention?  Hell, they couldn't even stop Harry Potter from becoming a household name.

The problem for The Golden Compass is that enough of the author's comments about the book and quotes from the book were clear enough about his intent that a lot of Christian but otherwise not activist parents were bothered enough by it to start passing around emails to their mailing lists talking about it.  The critics of Harry Potter were like the critics of Halloween.  The critics of The Golden Compass, on the other hand, had some great quotes from the books and author that say, well, yes, in fact these books are anti-religion and anti-Christian.  So much so that there is a Snopes.com page for the rumor that "The 2007 film The Golden Compass is based on a series of books with anti-religious themes." and declares the status "True".

Oh yes, there's no doubt that The Golden Compass has strong anti-christian themes in it, as opposed to vague mysticism or just un-family values elements that usually get protested. But that doesn't make the people who protested it any less nutjob-like.  They would do a lot better to make clear the arguments and then say "go see for yourself". If their faith is so strong, why are they so scared of the influence of a movie?  Give me the person of faith who works positively to promote his or her beliefs rather than the ones who run around trying to control what everybody else does.

Quote from: walkerpOh yes, there's no doubt that The Golden Compass has strong anti-christian themes in it, as opposed to vague mysticism or just un-family values elements that usually get protested. But that doesn't make the people who protested it any less nutjob-like.  They would do a lot better to make clear the arguments and then say "go see for yourself". If their faith is so strong, why are they so scared of the influence of a movie?  Give me the person of faith who works positively to promote his or her beliefs rather than the ones who run around trying to control what everybody else does.

For adults, I think that's a reasonable argument and insulating Christians from anti-Christian arguments only seems to make it more likely, in many cases, that the person will have their faith shaken by arguments that question their beliefs that they've never encountered before (e.g., Bart Ehrman having his Christianity shaken when he encountered evidence that the Bible had different versions of certain passages and wasn't quite as inerrant as he had assumed it was).  But I think it's a less sound argument when it comes to children, who have a less fully-formed understanding of the world and their beliefs and are more susceptible to propaganda and getting messed up by ideas that they can't deal with.  I can understand why a Christian parent wouldn't want their child reading an anti-Christian book in the same way I can understand why an atheist parent might not want their child reading a book with pro-Christian messages.  Propaganda is inevitable but the people who should decide what kind of propaganda a child gets fed is their parents.

I generally agree with that.  Unfortunately, the message that comes from these email campaigns isn't "educate yourself and your children" but "don't go see this and tell others not to see this".  It's put in the guise of protecting the children, but the message is meant to be seen by everybody, in particular the adults who control the purse strings.

I would not be critical of a campaign that said "You should sit with your children and discuss the foundations of your family's beliefs.  If the kids really want to see the movie, take them and have a discussion afterwards about where things in the movie may have differed from those beliefs."

There is a strong strain of intellectual debate in protestant christianity (nothing like the healthy skepticism built into judaism).  There are preachers and ministers who really like to dig into ideas critical of christianity and find their flaws in reasoned debate.  Unfortunately, these voices are more and more quashed by the ideologues and demagogues that seem (from my distant vantage point) to be taking over christianity in america today.

The sad fact of our society is that most people are so badly educated that they don't have the tools to educate themselves on these things, whatever their religious beliefs or ideologies may be.

In the end, what wins out is commercial success and I suspect that the Golden Compass is coming at the end of a long string of fantasy epics as well as being a bit confusing, with no really well-known property to lock onto consumers' minds and will go away relatively quietly.  I hope it eeks by enough to get them to do the entire trilogy.

Quote from: John MorrowFor adults, I think that's a reasonable argument and insulating Christians from anti-Christian arguments only seems to make it more likely, in many cases, that the person will have their faith shaken by arguments that question their beliefs that they've never encountered before (e.g., Bart Ehrman having his Christianity shaken when he encountered evidence that the Bible had different versions of certain passages and wasn't quite as inerrant as he had assumed it was).  But I think it's a less sound argument when it comes to children, who have a less fully-formed understanding of the world and their beliefs and are more susceptible to propaganda and getting messed up by ideas that they can't deal with.  I can understand why a Christian parent wouldn't want their child reading an anti-Christian book in the same way I can understand why an atheist parent might not want their child reading a book with pro-Christian messages.  Propaganda is inevitable but the people who should decide what kind of propaganda a child gets fed is their parents.

So children shouldn't be allowed to get multiple viewpoints and decide for themselves?  

More importantly - if they aren't capable of handling the ideas, then can they really have faith?  Is a child's faith in God really any different at all than his faith in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny?  

If it is, then they should be able to handle alternate points of view and make their own decisions.  If not, then is forcing religion on your children anything but brainwashing?  And is that really something people should do?

His Dark Materials is better than most children's books because it's not a patronising piece of shit. When I was a kid, I hated reading those trite stories because even then I understood how poorly they were written. HDM has its weak points, but it engages far more sophisticated subject matter (love, abandonment, children's powerlessness against adults, the goodness of God, to name only a few) than most children's books, and it treats children as capable of following, understanding and caring about these themes.

As for the anti-religion message, it is unquestionably anti-religious, and I'm glad that it is. Christians who shield their children from anti-religious messages are cowards with a vacuous and quavering personal faith that they realise can't stand up to more than the slightest scrutiny.

Quote from: jgantsSo children shouldn't be allowed to get multiple viewpoints and decide for themselves?  

More importantly - if they aren't capable of handling the ideas, then can they really have faith?  Is a child's faith in God really any different at all than his faith in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny?  

If it is, then they should be able to handle alternate points of view and make their own decisions.  If not, then is forcing religion on your children anything but brainwashing?  

Of course it's brainwashing.  But then, anything you teach a kid is pretty much brainwashing--whether you're foisting Christianity, atheism, or Islam on your kid, it still amounts to the same thing.  You just hope your kid will develop his own mind as he grows older and start to question things that do not make sense to him.  

I think it's okay for kids to start with a strong religious foundation, so long as that religion is not preaching violence toward others.  Remember, this is a child's life you're talking about, not a social or politically correct experiment.  You only get one chance to do right by them, and there are worse things than teaching them values through religion.  

The fact is that if everyone in the world followed the teachings of Jesus (as opposed to the Bible), the world would be a better place.  And keep in mind, this is coming from someone who believes in God but is not a Christian (Jesus is far too much of a pacifist for me).

Pete

I'd personally rather that people taught their kids to be freethinkers than "feed them propaganda" of any kind.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditI'd personally rather that people taught their kids to be freethinkers than "feed them propaganda" of any kind.

RPGPundit

Yes, but what exactly does that mean?  You have to teach them _something_ and whatever you teach them typically reflects your own personal viewpoints and bias, if not in words, then in actions and deeds, so it's all really propaganda.  It just comes down to what kind of foundation you want to lay for your child's own personal values.  It's easy to rage against the machine when you're only responsible for yourself, but when you're shaping a child's outlook (which is what you do as a parent, regardless of intent), you've got to take a lot of other things into consideration.

I know with my daughter, whenever the subject of Jesus or anything similar comes up, I always start off by saying "some people believe that. . ."  She hasn't asked me what I believe yet (she's only 5), but when she does, I'll be happy to tell her.  If she agrees with it, that's cool, if she decides to renounce all things holy or become a nun or convert to Judaism, that's cool, too.  

Pete

Quote from: RPGPunditI'd personally rather that people taught their kids to be freethinkers than "feed them propaganda" of any kind.

Ha-ha!  That's rich! :haw:

No, really.  Think through the pitfalls of teaching children to be "freethinkers" without indoctrination of any kind.  It's a real minefield you're proposing.

!i!

Quote from: pspahnYou have to teach them _something_ and whatever you teach them typically reflects your own personal viewpoints and bias, if not in words, then in actions and deeds, so it's all really propaganda.  

Actually, the Golden Rule (do unto others as you would have done unto you) is a pretty universal principle. You don't need to be a Christian or a Muslim or a declared Secular Humanist to follow that principle, or to teach it to your children.

You really don't need to teach children much beyond the Golden Rule. Of course empathy is a pretty important trait, but again, it's a universal virtue and not tied to any ideology or religion. Same with politeness and consideration.

Thing is, as far as teaching behaviour to children goes, there's very little difference between what responsible and caring parents in India, or Brazil, or Germany, or Mongolia, or Canada teach their kids.

Now, a lot of people have a need to believe in a greater cosmology, with an omnipotent power behind the curtain, assessing and guiding and judging the affairs of human kind. Or a doctrinaire political ideology that fills the same need for absolute certainty. I don't believe children need to be taught such things to be happy and compassionate. Many will want to embrace a religion or ideology once they grow up, in order to feel a sense of purpose. But you don't need that sense of purpose when you're 8 years old.

Raising kids with religion really comes down to placing a high value on following the traditions and rituals of your forefathers. To some people it's very important. To others, not so much. But neither way is in itself a better approach to raising children.