Controversy? Bring it on.

I’m not sure how long it will take me to write this blog, but I’m starting it on Christmas Eve. Somewhat ironic, I suppose, but I finished the book last night and I’ve got the time.

There’s been a lot of controversy flying around lately about Philip Pullman. I would have said something sooner, but I wanted to wait until I had finished reading the books and seen the movie, so that I could present an informed opinion.

First and foremost, I would like to state that the only people who could be led astray by a fantasy story must have such a tenuous grip on reality that they can’t tell truth from fiction. I’ve never understood how people can think the world is ending because a book or movie by an atheist might be popular. Actually, since most of Hollywood ascribes to scientology or Kabala, shouldn’t we boycott all movies if we’re going to boycott this one? It seems to me that if we’re going to save the youth from the evils of fiction and imagination, we should have started long before this movie, because I can’t think of a single blockbuster in the past several years that presents an accurate Christian worldview. Just saying. But I’ve gotten into this far too soon. I mean to start by talking about the works themselves.

The first book, The Golden Compass was actually very good. I enjoyed it thoroughly, and was looking forward to the movie version. And I finished reading it before the controversy broke out, so my opinion was untainted. On Thursday night, I saw the movie. I went with two friends from high school, and we were the only ones in the theater. That was telling in itself. Now, one of my friends had read the books, and the other one hadn’t, and their opinions on it support what I decided about the movie in the course of watching it. It’s just not that good. It moves too fast to keep track of what’s going on, there are overwhelming information dumps, and some of the main events are out of order. Even worse, the movie ends with a full two chapters left untold. I suppose they did that on purpose, so that the movie could stand alone if they don’t make enough money on it to finance the next two. Good planning on their part, I suppose, since I would bet they don’t make enough for it to be worthwhile. The overwhelming reaction to the movie among my party was disappointment from those of us who had read the book and confusion from the one who hadn’t.

Now don’t get me wrong, parts of the movie were very good. The fight between Iorek and the evil bear king was very well done, and I’m glad they stayed true to the way in which Iorek wins. But it was at the wrong place in the timeline. It was supposed to come after the events at Bolvangar, and it came before it instead. Again, I can see why they would want Bolvangar last, considering how they changed the ending, but it’s disconcerting all the same, for a purist. Not to mention the fact that it looks to happen in about a week, when it actually took much longer. As far as accurate movie versions of books, I’d say this one is pretty far down on the scale. Here is the scale I imagine: Lord of the Rings is at the top as a pretty faithful interpretation. Most fantasy fanatics would agree with me, I think. Farther down the scale is Harry Potter, which includes as much as possible, but still tends to confuse those who haven’t read the book. Next would be the Golden Compass, which diverges even more than Harry Potter, and causes even more confusion than the boy wizard. Further down the line is Beowulf, because even if we set aside our personal thoughts on what Grendel’s mother should have been like, the whole tone of the story has been changed and twisted and doesn’t give an accurate picture of the ancient epic. But that could be a whole separate post. We’ll see it I ever get to it. Suffice it to say that the movie was far from what it could have been.

So let’s look at what it could have been. I’ve already told you I thoroughly enjoyed the first book. It was well developed, well written, engaging and everything else an epic fantasy should be. Yes, geared toward a younger audience, but by no means a children’s book. The cover even states that it belongs in the teen section. Most children younger than the 12-year-old protagonist would have trouble getting through all 300 or so pages.

The problems with Pullman’s work—though I will cite a different set than the reactionaries—comes later in the trilogy. I admit that halfway through, the vehement boycotters gave away the ultimate ending of the series. I’m still mad at them for that. It’s not nearly as fun to read something you already know the end of. Although, when I reached the chapter in which “God” dies, there were still over 100 pages left, so that wasn’t actually the end. And as long as we’re on the topic, Pullman’s characters did not kill a god who even remotely resembles our own. Yes, Pullman himself has admitted to being an atheist and intentionally trying to write the “anti-Narnia.” Nietzsche didn’t kill God, and neither can Pullman. All he destroys is a false tyrant, which, in the context of the world he has developed, is a good thing.

So what do I have against Pullman? Halfway through the trilogy, his writing falls apart. There are rampant plot holes, unexplained inconsistencies in characters, overwhelming and unbelievable information dumps, blatant mistakes in the timeline and pivotal points in said timeline hanging on unbelievable circumstances. And then there’s the writing itself. He just loses his groove. I don’t know if I can explain it fully, but the flow he had in the first book, just doesn’t carry throughout the trilogy. His style becomes almost pedantic at points, and he spends too much time explaining little things that don’t affect the story. Too much telling and not enough showing, if you’re familiar with narrative theory. I had to force myself through the middle of the third book, simply because I was determined to see exactly how things ended so I could write this post. It did pick up, eventually, but then the ending petered out again. There was one climax, and then a lull, and then something meant to be another climax, and then two more chapters that just dragged on. I’m going to risk offending Berty and say the ending was lame.

Now for the proof, so you can see I’m not just venting. As for plot holes, there is the appearance of Mrs. Coulter in Will’s Oxford. That was the first truly unbelievable moment, but at least she is surprised, too. I’m undecided as to whether this next one is a plot hole or a character inconsistency, but Will’s father has a daemon when he finds himself in Lyra’s world, but none of the other travelers have the same experience. That seems like a problem to me. The most notable timeline mistake is that a character uses his communication device after having relinquished it to Lyra. He can’t use it if she has it—it just doesn’t work. The character inconsistencies are in Lyra’s parents. I know, they’re supposed to develop and change in the course of the story. But there is no apparent reason for the change. Mysterious changes can be acceptable, but not in a story that’s already so fractured and hard to follow.

Before I finished the last book, I was prepared to say that the most unbelievable moment was when Will instantly recognized his father in the instant before he died, even though he hadn’t seen the man in ten years (when he was two) and his father was old and sick. I just don’t buy that. Unfortunately, the rest of the decisions Will makes from that point are influenced by the fact that he knows it was his father he saw at that moment. Call me cynical, but even fantasies need a certain degree of realism in order to work. I mean, if the father had even said Will’s name before the witch shot him, that would have been something. But no.

And what could be worse than that? Sadly, the ending. Even after the tyrant is killed, the worlds are in danger of fading away, until Will and Lyra do something to stop it. And what do they do? They decide that they’ve fallen in love, and make out in a grove of trees. That’s right, two traumatized 12-year-olds fall in love. I don’t buy it. Their own character development implies that it will happen, but Pullman spends far too much time on it. That’s what makes the last two chapters so unbearable. Too much middle school drama. Their devotion is touching, but impractical. And considering the all-important Dust is attracted to wisdom, I fail to see how such a foolish act could attract enough of it to save the world. Plus, all their melodramatic moaning made me want to barf. I admired both characters until this point, and it is only after he has destroyed their credibility that he sets them up as the leaders of a movement to restore wisdom and sense to the worlds. Yeah, right. Oh, and their final decision, which seemed to be meant as a surprise by the number of times he danced around it in conversations between characters, would have been much more effective if he hadn’t randomly broke into third person narration with a future perspective. Telling us what Will would remember 60 years later kinda gives a lot away.

Sorry, this doesn’t all flow, but it’s late, and I’m tired.

One thing that makes Pullman’s narrative hard to follow later on is his inconsistent form of narration. He uses third person limited omniscient, meaning that he jumps into whoever’s head he wants among his main characters. Unfortunately, he rarely signals whose point of view he is narrating from, which can lead to confusion. The reader needs to know if the facts presented are objective or from the slant of a particular character. Multiple times this threw me off in scenes between Will and Lyra, in which the perspective could change from paragraph to paragraph, sometimes coinciding with dialogue, and sometimes not. This isn’t the worst of writing sins, but considering we know he can do better—as proven in the first book—it’s bad enough.

So how did this happen? How did a writer of such talent allow himself to slip so far? Possibly he had much more time to work on the first volume and had to write the next two far too quickly to have the same attention to detail. Possible, but I’m not letting him off that easily. My contention is that he didn’t care as much about the integrity of the story as he should have. He has admitted he had an agenda in writing the trilogy (whether he succeeded or failed is up to individual readers), and I believe that was his downfall. His information dumps serve only one purpose—outlining his position on the futility of Christianity and developing his false god. His main focus at these times is to make sure the reader has no doubt as to his position. Because of this, the narrative suffers. Any time a writer puts an agenda before the story, the story suffers. The story should always come first. Besides, many have said, and I believe all accept, that a writer’s opinions and beliefs will shine through his writing whether he intends them to or not. Madeleine L’engle writes this about Christian writing, implying that a work is still Christian even if it doesn’t mention Christ directly. I assume this would be true of any other religious worldview. Pullman’s atheism would have shone through without the pains he took to make it clear. Then, perhaps, the books might be more sinister to an untaught, impressionable mind reading in a vacuum devoid of other literature or truth of any kind.

As for the overboard Christian reaction, I think it was by far more dangerous for Christianity than this story. If we viciously and ignorantly condemn something simply because we are told it’s dangerous we only make ourselves look like fools. It seems to me that constantly defining ourselves by what we aren’t is counterproductive. The negatives will obscure the positives, and the things we promote—loving God and others, helping the poor and oppressed, acting as good stewards of what we have been blessed with—will be hidden entirely by the waving posters of picketers trying to protect our children from the evils of Harry Potter and Lyra Silvertongue. When we participate in a religion of reactionism, we resemble the closed-minded church Pullman depicts as evil. Personally, I belong to a Christianity that is too strong to be overthrown by a simple work of fiction, and I pity those who ascribe to one that can be.

My thoughts in a nutshell: The movie is a disappointment with a few great moments. The first book is a great read, but the next two aren’t worth the effort, and the trilogy as a whole is not the threat people make it out to be. But why take my word for it? Read the books and decide for yourself.


-Kim