Ambrosia Software Web Board: The Golden Compass - Ambrosia Software Web Board

As a teenager, I stopped reading children's books several years ago. When the world was going insane over Harry Potter, I was reading A Game of Thrones. HDM have no interest for me.

Cosmic_Nusiance, on Dec 9 2007, 09:16 PM, said:

?

Quote

It's interesting that you say that, because the distinction you are missing here (and one that is a major theme in the trilogy, I think it's fair to say) is the difference between God and religion. Saying that religion is prominent in our lives doesn't necessarily make God in control or aware or "in-place," as you put it. It's the other side of the idea that just because people do bad things in Jesus's name, doesn't necessarily make Jesus a bad person or Christianity a bad faith.

edit: hey, it's post 3800.

This post has been edited by Veritus Dartarion: 12 December 2007 - 10:03 PM

Sundered Angel, on Dec 9 2007, 11:04 PM, said:

I'm intrigued, but what exactly is it that motivates Brits to write about secular humanism (I'm excluding the obvious conclusion, which is that Brits like to feel intellectually superior to Americans).

Veritus Dartarion, on Dec 10 2007, 05:39 PM, said:

LOL. Notice that the breed was named by travelers after the monastery where they were kept. The travelers may not have been the best christians ever. Good point, though.

Veritus Dartarion, on Dec 10 2007, 05:39 PM, said:

Then what defines "in-place"? People are obviously seeking god, as shown by the fact of the increasing amount of religion. Majority rules, and most people in the world are pretty religious. Atheism isn't even logical, since by scientific standards and logic we know that you can't prove a negative like "god doesn't exist", and belief without proof is faith. People say that that doesn't necessarily mean that atheism is a religion, but look at Buddhism. They have no gods whatsoever. Atheism is religion, and thus people who are atheists because they want to be scientific or logical are crackpots. Agnosticism is the only "logical" way to not believe in a religion. I'm going to shut up now to keep this from spiraling way off-topic.

Cosmic_Nusiance, on Dec 10 2007, 04:33 PM, said:

Well, in the case of His Dark Materials I'd say that a autocratic god is described as "out-of-place" in a philosophical sense. The end of the trilogy is So I would argue that the statement is, in a sense, that in a post-Enlightenment world where the idea of a divinely-appointed earthly ruler has been cast down, an absolute heavenly ruler who tells everyone what to do and not do is analogously anachronistic. So that is the sense in which God is shown as out of place in the books. But this also makes more sense as a symbol for attack on enshrined absolute power generally instead of religion specifically, which is how it is often read anyway.

Cosmic_Nusiance, on Dec 10 2007, 04:33 PM, said:

I'd like to know, too. It's your term, I'm afraid.

Quote

So your argument is as follows:

If it doesn't have gods, it's a religion.

By that argument, myriad things, including but not limited to agnosticism, the British Monarchy and the art of refrigerator maintenance, are religions.

Maybe I'm being unfair, but I don't care.

Speaking of which, atheism probably is a religion, at least for some. I have a few friends who follow it, and it's certainly a matter of faith for them. The big difference between it and religion that I've noticed is that all of the proponents of atheism I've heard about are British guys who look like warthogs.

zurdo, on Dec 10 2007, 08:55 PM, said:

I was thinking more along the lines of "a major part of most people in the world's lives".

zurdo, on Dec 10 2007, 08:55 PM, said:

More like "if it doesn't have gods, it's not necessarily excluded from being a religion".

Cosmic_Nusiance, on Dec 10 2007, 06:07 PM, said:

That still doesn't prove your point.

Also, my dog's name is Zeke, which is short for Ezekiel. My father was once a pastor.

Cosmic_Nusiance, on Dec 10 2007, 05:33 PM, said:

If I remember my census stats correctly, the fastest growing religious affiliation in the US from 1990-2000 in terms of numbers was that category known as "Non-Religious." In terms of percentage growth, I believe that it was Wicca. Globally, I believe there was a Carnegie Foundation report noting that growth in religious affiliation is a direct function of the birth rate amongst religious people. In the US, people are flocking away from religion. Worldwide, people are only "seeking god" insofar as they're born into a religion. I don't think that your assertion is substantiated, but I may be wrong depending on how you define "amount of religion" which is extremely unclear and ambiguous.

Cosmic_Nusiance, on Dec 10 2007, 05:33 PM, said:

First off, majority does not rule. As a matter of fact, only 24 of the 192 nations on the planet use any variety of plurality system at the national level. Using the "majority rules" principle on that statistic gets you a system in which nobody actually wins, but rather everyone gets a part of the whole. Second, what does "pretty religious" mean? There are more self-identified nonreligious people in the world than there are Buddhists, Hindus, Chinese Traditionals, Tribalists, Taoists, and Jews. It's the third largest self-identified class in terms of religious affiliation. The nonreligious are not a trivial group that can be tossed off with a blanket assertion like the one you are making.

Cosmic_Nusiance, on Dec 10 2007, 05:33 PM, said:

Atheism is certainly dogmatic doctrine, but is a doctrine sufficient for something to be a religion? Common belief is one thing, practice is quite another. As a matter of fact, I would assert that most people in the world are not pretty religious, but are instead people who self-identify with a religion and believe it its core dogma that are not practitioners of the religion. From the Wikipedia article, a religion contains:

- a notion of the transcendent or divine, often, but not always, in the form of theism
- a cultural or behavioural aspect of ritual, liturgy and organized worship, often involving a priesthood, and societal norms of morality (ethos) and virtue (arete)
- a set of myths or sacred truths held in reverence or believed by adherents

It's the second one that's the rub here. I'm not sure that saying that you're a Christian and being a true believer in Christ in fact makes you a member of the Christian religion. I know the Catholic Church certainly makes this distinction. If you're not going to regular mass, taking the Host regularly, going to Confession, or supporting your Church, you're not a Catholic. You are welcome to say that you're a Catholic all you like, but that doesn't mean that you are one. There's a difference between being a believer and being religious, a distinction that is often lost in everyday discourse.

Back to Atheists, while there is some sort of Church of Atheism out in California, I believe, for the most part, Atheists are not religious and there is no particular cultural or behavioral aspect of ritual, liturgy, or organized worship associated with it, nor are there any particular societal norms linked to the belief system either. I also don't think that there's any variety of sacred mythology that is revered by Atheists the world over. Atheism is a faith-based dogma, but that doesn't mean that it's a religion.

-Pufer

zurdo, on Dec 11 2007, 12:16 AM, said:

Simple enough. Secular Humanism is far more common in England than it is in America. Therefore, there are more writers whose works show its influence. I'd also speculate that Secular Humanism as a philosophy is more common among the well-educated, and thus likely to have a greater impact on literature than its prevalence among the overall population would suggest.

If this book is half as trite as it sounds, I'm going to be disappointed.

gray_shirt_ninja, on Dec 10 2007, 10:31 PM, said:

Trust me, this ain't your average children's book. It's closer to Gregory Maguire's "Wicked" than L. Frank Baum's "Wizard of Oz".

dude3, on Dec 11 2007, 07:02 AM, said:

Trite? One could call The Golden Compass many things, many of them negative, but "trite" certainly isn't one of them.

Sundered Angel, on Dec 11 2007, 04:57 AM, said:

Please excuse me if I come across as overly critical. I have not read the book, and I am keeping an open mind.

Quote

That said, a novel written to combat Christianity or dogmatism or whatever else most certainly does sound trite.

dude3, on Dec 11 2007, 08:36 AM, said:

Just read the book, then. Even if you consider critiquing the Christian religion clichéd, I assure you that is merely a minor part of The Golden Compass. It won the Carnegie Medal for a good reason... bah, you get the point.

moonunit4eva, on Dec 7 2007, 12:51 PM, said:

I already wrote about my disappointment with the movie on the B&B topic. But anyway, I am a fan of the books. I was glad they released a movie until I saw it. Unfortunately they mangled the plotline, sucked out all the depth, and they wussed out on the silliest things, such as the Master not trying to poison Lord Asriel, or Iorek's backstory, or much of Bolvinger. And of course the last two chapters of the book just weren't in the movie. Frankly I fear for how bad the sequels will be, since if they wussed out on Iorek and the Master, and the kids tortured and dying, even Mrs. Coulter's and Lord Asriel's past, what will they do with Will or Cittàgazze? What the heck will they do with the Amber Spyglass? They can only depart further and further from the books as they try to sugarcoat all of the horrors and backstories.

Sundered Angel, on Dec 7 2007, 09:43 PM, said:

It's not like any sort of children's books I've ever read. I recently started reading through them again and I find them probably more enjoyable now than I did in middle school. It's pretty heavy stuff, although the movie glosses over most of it. Definitely pick them up.

moonunit4eva, on Dec 9 2007, 08:29 PM, said:

I definitely liked the cast, they did well in that regard. And if you know nothing at all about the books I think one might find the world very interesting. But having read the books, and again so recently, I found the world in the movie pretty flat, the action almost meaningless, and overall was disappointed by the adaptation.

The party scene was sadly missing, I noticed that right away and sort of had a double-take. The way Lyra ended up running away, and everything involving the Gyptians was lame.

Anyway, I ended up with an Osprey on the website thing. I can live with that.

Cosmic_Nusiance, on Dec 10 2007, 12:16 AM, said:

As a Christian, I can appreciate fiction as fiction, and enjoy a fictional universe without overreacting to concepts in such a fictional universe I might otherwise find heretical or overly critical.

Sundered Angel, on Dec 11 2007, 05:46 AM, said:

Yeah, Pullman may call himself an atheist, but if you actually read the book with an open mind you see that the story is about growing up, with an anti-authoritarian message, and so different from any real-world church that to say it is a criticism of any real-world church is just absurd. The story is fiction taking place in another universe. Just as I'm not going to get angry over them calling "electric" things "anbaric", I'm not going to get angry over them calling "the government" "the Church". In truth it is much more a bureaucracy than a religion, and even if it was a religion it wasn't much of one, if the Cardinals were marginalized, the Pope was non-existant, and a series of organizations that reported to nobody but themselves were running amok everywhere.

My dæmon…
A Fox named Androne

Traits it said i have... "Solitary, shy, modest, humble and passive."

I'm reading the book currently; I intend to see the movie upon finishing it.

mrxak, on Dec 12 2007, 03:01 AM, said:

I'm seeing it anyway, like I said. I can appreciate the fiction aspect, just not the anti-god aspect.

It's crazy to me that people are so much more up in arms about this than Da Vinci Code. That was like the biggest sack of crap ever.

I guess it didn't target kids though. So there ya go. People actually DO care about the little children!

Cosmic_Nusiance, on Dec 12 2007, 11:18 PM, said:

From what I understand, the plot of the movie has been neutered to avoid controversy - the Church isn't mentioned at all, let alone shown in the dire light the books place it in.

moonunit4eva, on Dec 13 2007, 03:51 AM, said:

Are they up in arms about it more than the Da Vinci Code? I haven't noticed any real controversy about it Down Under, but then, there wasn't any real controversy about the Da Vinci Code here either. Aussies are a lot more laid back about that sort of thing, really.

Incidentally, I just finished the Subtle Knife and am starting on The Amber Spyglass. Pullman isn't scared of giving his books an epic scope, is he?

I echo Sir Ian McKellan's sentiments about the controversy surrounding the Da Vinci Code:

"I'm amazed the church are against the idea, at least if Jesus had a child, it proves he wasn't gay."

I haven't read the books for a while, so I'm a little out on the plot elements. I think if I saw the movie now, I wouldn't be too annoyed at it.

I'm too young to have a settled daemon yet, but when my daemon settles, he will be a tiger. And he's called Brynn.

Sundered Angel, on Dec 13 2007, 01:07 AM, said:

They neutered it to avoid controversy, but they didn't stop at religious stuff (which in the book is fairly tame), they cut out anything that might offend anybody's sensibilities. Murder, adultery, torturing children, all gone.

Yeah, SA. There was a ton of negative hype surrounding the movie here. Tons of boycotts and crap like that. Da Vinci Code was quite like that too. I know my grandfather as a devout Catholic sent me a letter urging me not to read it. He said that it would have for sure been on the "Forbidden List" (This is my stand in word because I don't remember what Catholics actually call it.)

No he isn't Wait till you finish Spyglass. The ending is incredible.

Is anyone else tickled that a author finally has the guts to show a different view than "Christianity is absolutely the way and do not question." It makes me beyond happy.

mrxak, on Dec 15 2007, 08:57 AM, said:

Bugger.

Don't these people realise that "adult" stuff is what the greatest of children stories great? It doesn't matter if a book (or movie, or whatever) has murder, adultery, or whatever, so long as it is presented in a fashion that is suitable for its audience.

For instance, I was extremely charmed with the way that alcohol was handled in Northern Lights (a.k.a. The Golden Compass). It managed to touch on the ways and reasons that adults use it, while still maintaining a kid's "what a crazy nonsense alcohol is" sensibility.

moonunit4eva, on Dec 17 2007, 06:07 AM, said:

I finished it last night, as a matter of fact. While almost more bitter than sweet, there's no denying it's a potent ending to a superb trilogy. I think I might leave things there, though, since the indications seem to be that Pullman's later works aren't as good, and I'd rather keep the memories I have of Lyra and company rather than spoil them with substandard followup fare.

And as for Church ban lists and the like - there's no holding back knowledge. Persecuting an idea only makes it stronger, whether that idea is a noble scientific advance or twisted terrorist ideal.

Read most of the book, seeing the movie tonight...plan to finish book probably around Thursday(I read it on my lunch breaks)