FA+
Shop
Can't Stand (maybe I'll sit) - rant
18 years ago
General
I'm not often prone to ranting (at least I hope I havn't made an unintentioned habit of it) but my temper has been somewhat shorter then usual today and recent events in the backround of my life have been gnawing at me.
So I'm taking a page from the "Livejournal Code" and lowering my tact for a short while and assume that some of you actually want to hear my opinions (I've often rolled my eyes at the "livejournal" and "blog" phenomenon as being akin to chickens screaming in a barnyard. Mainly uninformed, largly uninteresting people shouting their opinions aloud as if they know what they are talking about, which often isn't the case. But the good part is that for all that cawwing, at least they have the ability to voice their opinions - annoying as they can be. Anyway, this is totally not what I ment to talk about).
I've recently been reading up about Philip Pullman and the "His Dark Materials" series (and the movies being made of them).
Before the announcment of the movies, I knew nothing at all about the series or the author, and it looked to me to be another "Narnia-esc" series about children and talking animals, and I wasn't interested.
A bizare fact about my tastes, is that "The Lord of the Rings is the only fantasy story that I truelly enjoy. My prefered genre is science-fiction. I reckognize it as simply something that's "not to my taste" and trust that that's enough for people (which it often isn't, and how indeed am I suppost to quantify to someone why it is I don't like a thing? Why do I like orange sherbert ice cream more then strawberry? Or prefer The Black Crowes to Dead Kennedy's? Is it not enough that I just don't like them? I can reckognize the Narnia series as a classic without liking it. I abhorred reading Crime and Punishment, yet that is a masterful work and well deserving of praise. But again, I'm off track. Let it be that I'm generally not a fan of fantasy, especially when it involves young children and talking animals. Anything Disney is almost automaticly right out.)
So I had no plans to see Golden Compass and thought no more of it.
Several nights ago, I beleive it was Thanksgiving evening, my mother (who is "up" on such matters) asked me if I had heard of the film. I had, and she asked if I knew about it's allagorical overtones. I hadn't and she explained that the books are very much anti-religion and that the books chronicle how a group of kids fight a thinly veiled charactiture of "the Church" and end up killing god himself.
Basicly, an evil mirror of the "Narnia" series.
She mentioned a quote, that I afterwards looked up, when the author mentioned that it was his desire to "destroy the image of God in the mind's of children".
Now, I am indeed a Christian, and it may well be that because of this I'm more sensitive to something that goes against my religion, but I found that very rude on a universal level.
I disliked the Narnia series when I read them, partly because of my aforementioned dislike of generall fantasy (I declined to see the movies, and did so vehemantly the more I was pressed), and partially because I was annoyed by the large amounts of Christian allagory within them.
On a simaler note, I disliked Mel Gibson's "Passion of the Christ" because it was basicly Christian/Catholic propoganda and I dislike anything that shoves a religion in my face.
But I beleive in freedom of expression, and the right of people and groups to express their beleifs in whatever medium they have available. Just because I think Scientology is utter crap doesn't mean that I would stop someone from making a Scientology-based movie (though I would be pleased if it was followed immediatly afterward with a Scientology-debunked film).
I would like to think of myself as being fair, and at least somewhat tolerant in my beleifs and how I treat those of others. Wether I agree or not, wether I like it or not, I'm not against Pullman's books or the films based on them.
He has that right, and I'd fight to support it.
But that doesn't mean that I'm emotionless about them either, or feel a desire to comment about them.
So after hearing this tale from my mother, I did a Wikipedia search (which I regard as a generally trustworthy source) and saw that much of what she said was true.
Only a few days ago, I saw two seperate referances to "The Golden Compass" in two seperate groups that I'm a part of.
In both cases, I referanced the quotes I had found and mentioned that I didn't intend to see the movies.
This was taken with respect by all parties, but from the responces I got from one, and what I began to feel myself, I was being regarded as an "overlly sensative Bible-Thumper" and a "literary eleitist" who "only reads books that agree with him".
This I felt was unfair, yet had no immediate argument against it.
I hadn't read the "Dark Materials" books, nor heard first-hand the interviews the quotes were taken from.
I was also commented to with some very well made responces saying that he wasn't railing against Christianity per se, but the dangers of dogma, or over-radicalization and so forth - none of which I could confirm nor deny because of my lack of knowledge on the subject.
So there I was (and here I am) painted somwhat into a corner by my own hand, feeling both illiterate and intolerant.
Was I being unfair to post an uniformed opinion? Perhaps, and I can't hold myself as a victim for it.
So I tried to open my mind more to the series and learn more, before I made a greater fool of myself (like I'm doing now).
One of the responders to my comment posted this link:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/2007.....ligious-movies
I read through it carefully, and ran across yet more quotes that didn't improve my feelings for Mr. Pullman.
I don't object to people's opinions. But I do object to the way they present them at times.
Once again to quote Hanna Rosin after a recent interview:
He once dismissed the Lord of the Rings trilogy as an “infantile work” primarily concerned with “maps and plans and languages and codes.” Narnia got it even worse: “Morally loathsome,” he called it. “One of the most ugly and poisonous things I’ve ever read.” He described his own series as Narnia’s moral opposite. “That’s the Christian one,” he told me. “And mine is the non-Christian.”
Putting the "maps and lanuages and codes" comment aside (Tolkien is well-known for all of those, some to an excessive degree), these comments, and others which followed it put a very sour taste in my mouth, and lessened my indiferance to his works into vauge dislike.
The rest of the article spoke of how New Line Cinema dumbed down his book and removed as much trace of religion as they could from the story, (which is itself a sad comment and something that I very much disagree with) and that his goal is to promote "liberal thought".
“We need joy, we need a sense of meaning and purpose in our lives, we need a connection with the universe, we need all the things the Kingdom of Heaven used to promise us but failed to deliver,” - Philip Pullman
He brings up a common complaint from those dissalutioned by the Church, that monotheism is divisive and ultimatly degenerates into dogma and eventually intellectual slavery and stagnation.
That also I can't disagree with. Blind obediance and the inablility to question is what made Church rule in the Dark Ages so Dark.
I think I'm going off on a tangent again, and it's getting rather late for me to try and keep writing, but I'll try and gather my thoughts together if I can.
In many things, I agree intellectually with what he has to say. And I support his right to say it (after all, if Hollywood can make a movie about Jeasus, why can't someone make a movie about aetheism?) but the manner he chooses to express his beleifs (Narnia-style fantasy) and the almost arrogant "I'm right and you're wrong" feeling I get from him via the interviews and synopsis of his books, makes it very unlikely I would be able to read, or watch any of his works with an unbiased mind.
And I feel bad for that reason.
None of that's very clear I'm afraid - and I probubly still missed my point, but as I said at the beginning, this was more-or-less my version of a rant, and I sincerly hope no one is offended.
If I seem to have insulted anything directly, it was totally unintentional.
D.O.P.R
So I'm taking a page from the "Livejournal Code" and lowering my tact for a short while and assume that some of you actually want to hear my opinions (I've often rolled my eyes at the "livejournal" and "blog" phenomenon as being akin to chickens screaming in a barnyard. Mainly uninformed, largly uninteresting people shouting their opinions aloud as if they know what they are talking about, which often isn't the case. But the good part is that for all that cawwing, at least they have the ability to voice their opinions - annoying as they can be. Anyway, this is totally not what I ment to talk about).
I've recently been reading up about Philip Pullman and the "His Dark Materials" series (and the movies being made of them).
Before the announcment of the movies, I knew nothing at all about the series or the author, and it looked to me to be another "Narnia-esc" series about children and talking animals, and I wasn't interested.
A bizare fact about my tastes, is that "The Lord of the Rings is the only fantasy story that I truelly enjoy. My prefered genre is science-fiction. I reckognize it as simply something that's "not to my taste" and trust that that's enough for people (which it often isn't, and how indeed am I suppost to quantify to someone why it is I don't like a thing? Why do I like orange sherbert ice cream more then strawberry? Or prefer The Black Crowes to Dead Kennedy's? Is it not enough that I just don't like them? I can reckognize the Narnia series as a classic without liking it. I abhorred reading Crime and Punishment, yet that is a masterful work and well deserving of praise. But again, I'm off track. Let it be that I'm generally not a fan of fantasy, especially when it involves young children and talking animals. Anything Disney is almost automaticly right out.)
So I had no plans to see Golden Compass and thought no more of it.
Several nights ago, I beleive it was Thanksgiving evening, my mother (who is "up" on such matters) asked me if I had heard of the film. I had, and she asked if I knew about it's allagorical overtones. I hadn't and she explained that the books are very much anti-religion and that the books chronicle how a group of kids fight a thinly veiled charactiture of "the Church" and end up killing god himself.
Basicly, an evil mirror of the "Narnia" series.
She mentioned a quote, that I afterwards looked up, when the author mentioned that it was his desire to "destroy the image of God in the mind's of children".
Now, I am indeed a Christian, and it may well be that because of this I'm more sensitive to something that goes against my religion, but I found that very rude on a universal level.
I disliked the Narnia series when I read them, partly because of my aforementioned dislike of generall fantasy (I declined to see the movies, and did so vehemantly the more I was pressed), and partially because I was annoyed by the large amounts of Christian allagory within them.
On a simaler note, I disliked Mel Gibson's "Passion of the Christ" because it was basicly Christian/Catholic propoganda and I dislike anything that shoves a religion in my face.
But I beleive in freedom of expression, and the right of people and groups to express their beleifs in whatever medium they have available. Just because I think Scientology is utter crap doesn't mean that I would stop someone from making a Scientology-based movie (though I would be pleased if it was followed immediatly afterward with a Scientology-debunked film).
I would like to think of myself as being fair, and at least somewhat tolerant in my beleifs and how I treat those of others. Wether I agree or not, wether I like it or not, I'm not against Pullman's books or the films based on them.
He has that right, and I'd fight to support it.
But that doesn't mean that I'm emotionless about them either, or feel a desire to comment about them.
So after hearing this tale from my mother, I did a Wikipedia search (which I regard as a generally trustworthy source) and saw that much of what she said was true.
Only a few days ago, I saw two seperate referances to "The Golden Compass" in two seperate groups that I'm a part of.
In both cases, I referanced the quotes I had found and mentioned that I didn't intend to see the movies.
This was taken with respect by all parties, but from the responces I got from one, and what I began to feel myself, I was being regarded as an "overlly sensative Bible-Thumper" and a "literary eleitist" who "only reads books that agree with him".
This I felt was unfair, yet had no immediate argument against it.
I hadn't read the "Dark Materials" books, nor heard first-hand the interviews the quotes were taken from.
I was also commented to with some very well made responces saying that he wasn't railing against Christianity per se, but the dangers of dogma, or over-radicalization and so forth - none of which I could confirm nor deny because of my lack of knowledge on the subject.
So there I was (and here I am) painted somwhat into a corner by my own hand, feeling both illiterate and intolerant.
Was I being unfair to post an uniformed opinion? Perhaps, and I can't hold myself as a victim for it.
So I tried to open my mind more to the series and learn more, before I made a greater fool of myself (like I'm doing now).
One of the responders to my comment posted this link:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/2007.....ligious-movies
I read through it carefully, and ran across yet more quotes that didn't improve my feelings for Mr. Pullman.
I don't object to people's opinions. But I do object to the way they present them at times.
Once again to quote Hanna Rosin after a recent interview:
He once dismissed the Lord of the Rings trilogy as an “infantile work” primarily concerned with “maps and plans and languages and codes.” Narnia got it even worse: “Morally loathsome,” he called it. “One of the most ugly and poisonous things I’ve ever read.” He described his own series as Narnia’s moral opposite. “That’s the Christian one,” he told me. “And mine is the non-Christian.”
Putting the "maps and lanuages and codes" comment aside (Tolkien is well-known for all of those, some to an excessive degree), these comments, and others which followed it put a very sour taste in my mouth, and lessened my indiferance to his works into vauge dislike.
The rest of the article spoke of how New Line Cinema dumbed down his book and removed as much trace of religion as they could from the story, (which is itself a sad comment and something that I very much disagree with) and that his goal is to promote "liberal thought".
“We need joy, we need a sense of meaning and purpose in our lives, we need a connection with the universe, we need all the things the Kingdom of Heaven used to promise us but failed to deliver,” - Philip Pullman
He brings up a common complaint from those dissalutioned by the Church, that monotheism is divisive and ultimatly degenerates into dogma and eventually intellectual slavery and stagnation.
That also I can't disagree with. Blind obediance and the inablility to question is what made Church rule in the Dark Ages so Dark.
I think I'm going off on a tangent again, and it's getting rather late for me to try and keep writing, but I'll try and gather my thoughts together if I can.
In many things, I agree intellectually with what he has to say. And I support his right to say it (after all, if Hollywood can make a movie about Jeasus, why can't someone make a movie about aetheism?) but the manner he chooses to express his beleifs (Narnia-style fantasy) and the almost arrogant "I'm right and you're wrong" feeling I get from him via the interviews and synopsis of his books, makes it very unlikely I would be able to read, or watch any of his works with an unbiased mind.
And I feel bad for that reason.
None of that's very clear I'm afraid - and I probubly still missed my point, but as I said at the beginning, this was more-or-less my version of a rant, and I sincerly hope no one is offended.
If I seem to have insulted anything directly, it was totally unintentional.
D.O.P.R
I think the reason so many folks trash Lord of the Rings is because they've grown up in a world where so much fantasy has been derivative of Tolkien's work. The journey with the magic sword and the special, fated person that will slay the whatever has been done to death because its EASY. And look how far things of degenerated with pixel paperdolls like online multi player fantasy games. Sword and sorcery has been made trite and dumb for easy public consumption at large. Its been destroyed for me.
Honestly, the only reason I'd see Golden Compass is for the bear eye-candy but really that's not enough to make me see it. I'm annoyed that its been neutered. Its been made soft and easy to swallow for mass public consumption. I expect that from Hollywood. I don't care for anti-religious messages because I'm cynical enough to see that fanatics always find ideas to forther over and force down our throats be it fundamentalist evangelical Christianity, jihadist Islamists, veganism, humanism, pop psychology, or what have you. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
As far as Tolkien bashing. A bit as what Mule said, that his work has become so heavy in modern fantasy (especially when Tolkien's work is pretty much stealing from older works and personalizing them), that people do tend to get tired of reading it. Terry Pratchett (the Discworld series), when accepting the Carnegie medal for his book The Amazing Maurice And His Educated Rodents said, "Far more beguiling than the idea that evil can be destroyed by throwing a piece of expensive jewellery into a volcano is the possibility that evil can be defused by talking." Granted, Pratchett had some choice things to say about Rowling as well. I personally wonder what it is about English writers with letters for names that make them sell better than those with words for names?
But, ah well... things will be made, and people will complain about it. Such is the nature of progress.
But on the other side, when I read a book, play a game or watch a movie, then I always put away my morale and ethics, because a book mostly expresses the ethical point of view of the writer.
If I wouldn't do this, I would never read Tolkien or LOvecraft, because their racistic points of view would offend me so much that I would instantly burn their books.
If you look closely, Tolkiens works depicts all evil as dark skinned or/and coming from the east. On the opposite are the good ones, who are pale, blonde and come from the west.
And I won't start to list up references for racism in H.P. Lovecraft storys, because everyone who reads a book of him will have no problems to find some racism in it.
But besides that, I still like Tolkien and Lovecraft and their literature, and that won't change.
It's never hard to "invent" a reason to shout "RACISM", even in the most mundane of circumstances. And while it's quite possible that Tolkien (like all people) harbored some personal feelings of racial elitism, there is just as much evidence that he was much more tolerant then many other people of his day.
Most of the arguments regarding Tolkien's racism are extremly frail, and don't stand up well when put to argument.
For example, a few people have mistaken the symbolic conflict between "darkness" and "light" in the books for a conflict between "black" and "white", which they then interpret racially.
Yet seem to overlook the ghastly white corpse-light of Minas Morgul, the White Hand of Saruman, and Isildur's black Stone of Erech.
As for specific claims that Tolkien linked skin color to good and evil, there are simply too many exceptions for that to hold up. Light skinned characters who did evil things include Saruman, Grima, Gollum, Boromir (ended up being a hero anyway), Denethor, and the Numenoreans.
And it is notable that Tolkien described Forlong's people of Gondor and even the men of Bree as "swarthy", the same term he used for the Southrons who were ambushed by Faramir. For that matter, Sam's flash of empathy for the fallen Southron he saw during the ambush indicates that many of Sauron's soldiers were likely unwilling slaves, and not all evil at heart.
In short, while there are racially "suspicious" elements to be found in Tolkien's writings if one hunts for them, closer examination typically reveals the attitude behind them to be benign. That doesn't mean that he was perfect, but it certainly doesn't seem that he should be condemned for intolerance.
D.O.P.R (most of the precedding info was taken from the Tolkien FAQ)
But I have to admit that it is rather normal for people like Tolkien or Lovecraft to be slightly rassistic (i.e. social cirumstances mentioned in your answer).
D.O.P.R
Personally, I just think about whether or not a book is good. I enjoyed His Dark Materials, as well as other "biased" series. It's the authors I don't look at, as well as the actors and directors and so on (Chuck Norris is funny as a meme, not a religious fanatic). Finding out about such things is, wassname, disruptive.
D.O.P.R