Comments on: Deus absconditus

By: Ray Davis

Ray Davis — Mon, 13 Dec 2004 04:16:43 +0000

“Could you possibly provide the name of a single Hollywood movie based on an ‘anti-Christian screed,’ toned down or otherwise, that one might find listed in the IMDb database?” Easy: Lonelyhearts.

By: John Quiggin

John Quiggin — Fri, 10 Dec 2004 01:26:13 +0000

This isn't the only example of this kind of thing. Here's Ursula K Le Guin on Earthsea (via Bill Tozier)

By: a different chris

a different chris — Fri, 10 Dec 2004 01:25:17 +0000

I am not acquainted with the books or have any intention of becoming acquainted with them. I am still compelled to say this seems like typical Anglo misreading of America. If the storys truly attack the idea of an Invisible Superhero In The Sky, they won’t go over well. But if it is just against organized religion, this is pathetically simple. Fill in the details so everybody can nudge each other and say knowingly “that’s the Catholic Church.” Because the Catholics really won’t mind, and the fundies LOVE bashing the Catholics. They’ll show up in droves and say “see, that’s what we’re up against!!” You guys hate them even more than us atheists, right “ra”? Admit it. People like “ra” simply aren’t perceptive enough to see themselves in their enemies, so no problem. The common sense God/Allah gave to “anna in cairo” and her son is sorely lacking in them.

By: Sebastian Holsclaw

Sebastian Holsclaw — Fri, 10 Dec 2004 00:21:55 +0000

“Killing off large swaths of Susan’s remaining family doesn’t strike you as rather an extreme punishment for shallowness?” Once again it has been quite some time since I read the book, but aren’t the family members who died those who went to be with Aslan in the eternal Narnia after the Last Battle? That wasn’t a punishment for her, it was the side effect of a reward for them. Right?

By: Alison

Alison — Thu, 09 Dec 2004 20:40:39 +0000

I think reading the Last Battle I got the first inkling that ‘judging Susan’ was a bit – I don’t know – creepy. It was an important step for me in the process of leaving religion behind. It kind of gives me the creeps now.

By: anon

anon — Thu, 09 Dec 2004 20:07:13 +0000

Killing off large swaths of Susan’s remaining family doesn’t strike you as rather an extreme punishment for shallowness? The people who think there’s no problem with Susan, probably think there’s no Problem of Evil in the first place. It may be that philosophers of religion have some reasonable solutions to the PoE, but Narnia clearly doesn’t.

By: Dan Hardie

Dan Hardie — Thu, 09 Dec 2004 17:08:24 +0000

I read the Narnia books, with sheer delight much of the time, between the ages of 7 and 10, and haven’t re-read them since the age of 11. Probably the best thing to do- I’ll always have the memories of reading them and I won’t spoil them by realising that this or that character is in fact down to Lewis’s Christian apologetics, rightwing politics or sadomasochism. I did re-read ‘Huckleberry Finn’ last year, having last read it aged 11: of course there was a lot I’d missed the first time, but there was also a lot that must have meant more to me as a child, when I found adults as terrifying and incomprehensible as Huck does. Both the 11-year-old me and the elderly me agree that the last few chapters, from the reappearance of Tom Sawyer, are absolutely appalling. Next time I re-read it, I’ll stop at that point.

By: AlanC9

AlanC9 — Thu, 09 Dec 2004 17:06:54 +0000

“How does Pullman’s entire afterlife system self-organize from his premises?” Well, the concentration camp thing isn’t self-organized from the premises. It’s an irrational add-on. And the replacement system isn’t any kind of afterlife at all.

By: fyreflye

fyreflye — Thu, 09 Dec 2004 16:37:51 +0000

“The reason Hollywood occasionally tones down anti-Christian screeds is that people will not go see them. They will loose money.” Could you possibly provide the name of a single Hollywood movie based on an ‘anti-Christian screed,’ toned down or otherwise, that one might find listed in the IMDb database?

By: RA

RA — Thu, 09 Dec 2004 16:14:20 +0000

The reason Hollywood occasionally tones down anti-Christian screeds is that people will not go see them. They will loose money. You see, the anti-Chritan bigotry you people exude is not shared by the vast majority of Americans. As far as criticizing it before we see it. You don’t have to taste a cow pie before you know you don’t want to step in it. Yes we will advertise the reviews and let the folks make a decision. Hateful minorities don’t get far in free America.

By: RA

RA — Thu, 09 Dec 2004 16:05:29 +0000

I would like to point out that it is you humanists that are doing all the censoring in the “condom on the banana” school system. Those bad evangelicals should know their place and be silent in the presences of superior intellects.

By: Stephen M (Ethesis

Stephen M (Ethesis — Thu, 09 Dec 2004 15:21:43 +0000

But there may be some modification of terms. You will probably not hear of the “Church” but you will hear of the Magisterium. Those who will understand will understand. I have no desire to change the nature or intentions of the villains of the piece, but they may appear in more subtle guises. So, does the movie really have to be a blatent anti-Catholic screed or can it allow itself to have a suppressing authority, the Magisterium? There is a lot of use of the Catholic Church to model the evil empire. The structure, history and social spaces work very well, they almost build themselves for an author. I’ve had friends use the technique out of convenience and it is almost a staple in some sub-genres because it is so evocative and direct. However, that doesn’t mean that most of the people using the motif are anti-Catholic or that the bad guys really need to be Catholics. Far from it. I would suggest that in our continuingly secular world, quasi-Marxist state structures are the new form that fits what used to be filled by para-Catholics. Leftists as demons rather than religious types. Does that mean that Crooked Timber is any more close to the regions of darkness than Mother Teresa? Probably not. But it is an easy riff to use in writing. Anyway, looks like the initial books will be true to the series, though I hope they fix the end. One real problem is so many writers start without having a conclusion in mind. They take classic elements, “the blessed child” or “the evil Catholic Church clone” or “anything for science” and toss them up in the air. It is captivating as it starts—there is good reason that classic elements are classics. But the real test comes in pulling it all together. Exactly why does the blessed child need to make their own choices without help (in Pullman’s work that has no answer)? How do they save the world (again, they seal up all the leaks anyway, what need for a child porn interval)? Etc. Come on. How does Pullman’s entire afterlife system self-organize from his premises? Lots of easy elements to start with, and an engaging style in laying them out, but the proof is in whether or not he can bring them home.

By: MikeN

MikeN — Thu, 09 Dec 2004 14:58:30 +0000

Isn’t it pretty obvious that the Dwarfs in “The Last Battle” are just a nasty dig at the unions/Labour Party? To (possibly) stretch the analogy, the Dwarfs helped defeat the invading Calormenes (Nazis) but wouldn’t accept the restoration of the rightful ruling order (rejecting Churchill, the ungraeful swine).

By: Donald Johnson

Donald Johnson — Thu, 09 Dec 2004 14:43:00 +0000

What was wrong with Susan was that her interest in boys made her shallow. Interest in boys doesn’t absolutely have to do that. By the way, getting back to the dwarfs, they weren’t exactly innocent victims either—they killed Narnian good guys at a climactic moment in the battle, which makes them more than just misguided cynics.

By: Alison

Alison — Thu, 09 Dec 2004 11:07:46 +0000

oops I meant ‘Benedick’