I'm resurrecting this blog. So I pretty much expect nobody to read it. But I figured I might try to post somewhat regularly. Even if it's about nothing. So if you plan on reading this regularly, I apologize in advance for the likely garbage posts.
Moving on...
I just finished Phillip Pullman's The Golden Compass. I remember a few years ago when the movie came out there was a big stink about how Pullman was an avowed atheist and was "the anti-Lewis" and good Christians shouldn't go see it and all. I went and saw it anyway. Oops. I didn't really see what all the fuss was about. I could definitely see some anti-religious establishment themes in it, but not much beyond that. I thought the movie was mediocre. It looked like something that fell pretty short of it's potential, based on how neat the ideas and characters were.
So the other day I started listening to the audiobook. As I listened it became pretty obvious that the movie differed greatly. The basic theme stayed the same but vast sections of character development, world explanation and back story had just been tossed aside. Also the chronology in the movie was kind of jumbled from the book, and the book made much more sense. That being said, I can't exactly say I liked the book. I didn't hate it, but it didn't leave me with warm fuzzies. I may go ahead and finish the series, but I don't expect it to be something I cherish when I finish. Lord of the Rings, Narnia and Harry Potter I cherish. Ender's Game I cherish. The "His Dark Materials" series (as it's called) not so much.
***WARNING: SPOILERS***
Here's the main reason I wasn't that fond of it: it's morally ambiguous. The book get's pretty obviously anti-Church if nothing else towards the end. But I can deal with that. Similar to DaVinci Code or those types of books, where those in the church use their power to gain control over people, instead of shepherding a flock. I can deal with that if at the end, the hero is good. But in this book Lyra (the main character) is more or less a pathological liar. Everytime she gets into a tight spot, she lies her way out and the book pretty much glorifies it. I get that the bad guys are bad. But the good guy(girl) wasn't really that good.
In Narnia, Harry Potter, and LotR the good guys and bad guys are pretty obvious, barring a few sneaks. There are clear lines between what is right and what is wrong. In Ender's Game, by Orson Scott Card, a large point of the book is how the adults use the children to do terrible things. They are technically the good guys, but they are conflicted characters because they are forced to do terrible things. But the terrible things they do keep them awake at night, because they hate it and are presented as good men.
You could argue that the desire for the good to triumph over evil is an archaic stereotype, but I think it's more than that. I think a fantasy/sci-fi story, particularly one in which the protagonist is a child, needs a positive moral because otherwise it's just a bizarre version of our world. We are awash in a sea of moral ambiguity today. If I wanted a story that glorified moral ambiguity I'd just read the newspaper. Homosexual partners can't have the rights of married people (agreed) but heterosexual non-marrieds can if they live together for a while (what?). A man can be guilty of double homocide if he attacks a pregnant mother (no matter how far along), but if she gives permission to a doctor, then it's okay. When I pick up a book I want something that moves beyond the drudgery and confusion of this world. Make the villain bad. Make them vile, repulsive and evil, but give me a hero. And your hero can be flawed, that's fine. Frodo wanted to keep the ring, Edmund followed the White Witch for a while, Harry was a selfish brat half the time. But in the end, give me something that inspires.
For another good read check out Andrew Peterson's posts on Harry Potter and Writing Fantasy
No comments:
Post a Comment