The Pretentious Polemics of Pullman's Pompous Pals

Laura Miller, writing in the L.A. Times, has come up with an ingenious defense of Philip Pullman against those fundamentalist, illiterate nitwits who revel in "paranoia, alarmism and extremism" (her words). Namely: it's stupid to be concerned that Pullman is engaged in a covert campaign to attack Catholicism since the British author has always been open about his hatred for "organized religion"—especially Christianity—and the traditional, orthodox God of the Judeo-Christian heritage:

Also -- whoops! -- no one's been hiding "His Dark Materials." To date, 15 million copies of Pullman's books have been sold worldwide. "The Golden Compass" won not only the 1995 Carnegie Medal, a prize awarded by British children's librarians, but also the "Carnegie of Carnegies," as the public's favorite book in the prize's 70-year history. The final novel in the trilogy, "The Amber Spyglass," won the Whitbread Book of the Year award in 2001, the first children's book ever to do so. It's safe to say that copies of the trilogy reside in every decent children's library in the nation. If there is indeed a "deceitful stealth campaign" afoot to lure children to Pullman's books -- as William Donohue, spokesman for the Catholic League, insists -- it's remarkably short on stealth.

What's really astonishing, and telling, is how long it's taken America's religious fear-mongers to notice Pullman. He's never hidden his skepticism about God or his rejection of organized religion. A quick Internet search turns up a 2004 essay he wrote deploring "theocracies" for a newspaper in his native Britain, and his own Web site states that he thinks it "perfectly possible to explain how the universe came about without bringing God into it." "His Dark Materials" features a sympathetic character, an ex-nun, who describes Christianity as "a very powerful and convincing mistake," while "The Amber Spyglass" concludes with the two child heroes participating in the dissolution of "the Authority," a senile, pretender God who has falsely passed himself off as the creator of the universe.

You have to admit, this is ridiculously clever (or cleverly ridiculous), like saying it's bad form and even hypocritical to start worrying about radical Islam after 9/11 since terrorists had been plying their violent trade for many years prior (and, no, I'm not comparing Pullman to a terrorist; I'm making an analogy concerned with a particular form of "argument"). But Miller's sleight-of-hand-and-even-slighter-of-logic ploy goes even further—or attempts to:

Whether the controversy will harm the film or wrap it in the glamour of the forbidden remains to be seen. As for the books, well, you have to wonder how much actual reading goes on in the sort of household that welcomes e-mails like the ones denouncing "The Golden Compass," anyway.

Ooohhh...did you catch that? Well, if you are concerned about Pullman's books and movie, you probably didn't, since you're probably an illiterate moron—at least according to Miller. Powerful stuff, don't you think? Oh, that's right—you can't think. Or read. That's unfortunate, because the brilliant rhetorical riffs are just starting to get cranked up:

Yes, it's true, as the e-mails virtually shriek, that Pullman once told an interviewer "His Dark Materials" is about "killing God," and that he wrote an op-ed piece describing C.S. Lewis' "The Chronicles of Narnia" as "ugly and poisonous." It's also true that these statements have been taken out of context -- not just out of the context of a particular interview or newspaper editorial, but out of the context of an entire culture, a culture of conversation, debate and consideration, rather than paranoia, alarmism and extremism.

Ah, the ol' "yes, it's true, but only because you don't have the right context" tactic. For those with a mild respect for commonsense, this can be a tad befuddling. It is the standard approach of people who think they are much smarter than the other 99.9999% of the population and who won't stand to have basic logic and clear facts get in the way of letting everyone know just how brilliant, open minded, progressive, and cultivated they are. And one of the delightful ironies of this approach is that its practitioners insist on the need for "a culture of conversation, debate and consideration" while refusing to converse, debate, or consider anything that is said, believed, argued, or otherwise proffered by those who disagree with them. On the contrary, they avoid the difficulty of such engagement or debate by simply calling people names and labeling them as unworthy of their precious, "aren't you lucky I exist?" attention. Further, while avoiding any real conversation with their actual opponents, they congratulate themselves on being so inclusive that they'll offer adulatory praise for those they oh-so-conveniently claim are on the other side—but really aren't:

I first met Pullman in England, at an annual lecture sponsored by a trust dedicated to the furthering of religious education. I buttonholed Simon Pettitt, an Anglican priest and the trust's chairman, to marvel at this; his counterparts in the United States, I said, would never have invited a figure like Pullman to speak at a flagship public event.

Ha! I'll do you one better: in the United States it is becoming nigh impossible to find a public school or a secular college/university that is willing invite an orthodox Christian to speak at a public event. Just thought I'd mention it. Carry on.

And yet, Pettitt is no renegade. Rowan Williams, the archbishop of Canterbury, has enthused about "His Dark Materials" and participated in an onstage discussion with Pullman when a stage version of "His Dark Materials" was produced by the National Theatre in London.

Exactly my point: readers are supposed to assume that Mr. Pullman and Mr. Williams are on the opposite end of the ideological spectrum from one another. But...

Although Pullman has some vehement detractors among Britain's Christians, the liberal clergy there have more often valued his books for tackling the great questions of existence: life, death, morality and humanity's role in the universe. They regard his fiction as a springboard for discussion, the kind of discussion that does sometimes lead people to embrace God. They recognize him not as an enemy but as an ally in a society increasingly colonized by the vapid preoccupations of consumer culture.

...they aren't. You see, they share a common core of values: they both dislike empty entertainment and capitalism. Never mind that Pullman's books and interviews reveal a man whose philosophical and theological chops (not to mention his historical knowledge) make Jack Chick look like Karl Barth.  (See this article, by the way, for a pithy, punchy exposé of Pullman's lack of literary logic.) If Pullman offers any "answer" to the great questions of human existence, it is simply this: "We are material objects with no meaning or purpose to our lives. Buy my books! Watch my movie! Nitwits!"

Approaching the end of her tour de forced argument, Miller goes for the jugular with that most ancient and beloved tool of irrational polemicists—the bold, unflinching lie:

Pullman also turned out to be no dogmatist. His practice of tossing out provocative statements struck me as a habit acquired during his years as a middle-school teacher, intended not to shut out opposing ideas but to flush them from the underbrush of adolescent inertia. He too is interested in what the other side has to say. This curiosity is in keeping with an ideal he calls "the democracy of reading," in which "to-and-fro between reader and text" leaves each "free to engage honestly with the other."

"He too is interested in what the other side has to say." Yep, just like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and other self-described atheists, Pullman gives every indication that he has spent numerous seconds, even a few minutes, contemplating the statements and arguments of his opponents before finally declaring, "Nitwits!" No, based on everything I've seen, he doesn't really give a flying armored polar bear what theistic philosophers have to say. Meanwhile, numerous Christian rubes and unwashed ingrates have actually read Pullman's books and interviews and have responded carefully and at length to his ideas, beliefs, and laughable insults. And you know what they are? Yep: paranoid, alarmist, and extremist.

Finally, in concluding, Miller offers another variation on her opening argument, this time suggesting that orthodox Christian criticisms of Pullman's ideas are wrong because (are you ready?) they are orthodox Christian criticisms:

Stories are wayward and so are readers, as the millions of kids who have loved Lewis' Narnia books without succumbing to their Christian symbolism can testify. Donna Freitas, a liberal American Catholic theologian and coauthor (with Jason King) of a book about Pullman's trilogy, "Killing the Impostor God," hails "His Dark Materials" as a "religious classic," in which the old patriarchal model of God is "killed" to make way for a new divinity, "fit for our age." She calls Pullman a "reluctant theologian," and the author has praised her book as among the best yet written about his work.

I've remarked at length already about Freitas's strange obsession with Pullman, but will point out that she refers to the traditional Christian understanding of God as "Old-Man-Gandalf in the sky" and carries on and on about "woman’s body-as-God", "new possible 'divinities'", "God/dess", "God-as-she", "Divine-She", and "the feminine divine." (Hey, if she's Catholic, I'm a cross-dressing, Marxist Buddhist with a seven-octave range who sings ABBA tunes in Irish pubs for free rounds of Diet Pepsi.) The point here is that she and Miller apparently celebrate the "killing" of the "old patriarchal God" and embrace "a new divinity...fit for our age." This, however, is not a reason for alarm. Why not? Because Pullman has been preaching this for many years, and to get concerned about it now would be to miss out on the one-sided conversation that the really smart people are having among themselves. I'd explain further, but it would involve actual reading...

Comments

[grimreader]

So they guy wrote a book you don't agree with. Big deal. Get over it. He's got every right to write what he likes. As a Roman Catholic, i find the kind of response to Pullman that you give embarrassing. I'd like to think my fellow christians had enough confidence in their faith not to gather up their skirts and shriek at the first sign of an atheistic mouse.

[Sandra Miesel]

If it's a mouse, it's roaring quite loudly.

I do regret not making myself read the accursed books sooner. But it's the movie, not the books that have gotten this on everybody's radar.

Pullman's attack on CS Lewis is most certainly not taken out of context. The whole article is a vicious rant which manages not only to take Lewis out of context but to accuse him of sins he demonstrably didn't commit.

Carl, Pete and I read a stack of Pullman's past interviews back to the 90s. We didn't rely on pull-quotes by others. Anyone can google the same stuff and verify our charges.

[Brian John Schuettler]

I just went over to Steve Greydanus' site to get his take on the movie. Unfortunately he hasn't posted on it yet.

[padraighh]

We should not wonder that Pullman has such great contempt for
C.S. Lewis in as much as Pullman is a perfect example of the Green
Witch in The Silver Chair.
As the witch addresses the two children she entralls them
with the story that there is no sun. The children know in
their hearts that they have seen the sun, yet
imprisioned in the underground, how long we know not,
they lose faith in ever seeing the sun again
and give into the witches soothing voice.
Puddleglum (the lion in wiggleworm clothing),
unlike the USCCB resists the narcotic effects
of the witch's spell and speaks to the children the
truth - that there is a sun and that they have seen it
and that if the underground world is all
the witch has to offer, well, then together
they can make a world to lick the witch's world hollow.

At this the children regain their bearings and
the witch's falsehoods lose
their power.

One wonders what exactly the world
of Pullman has to offer children. Here we have an
Author (authority) telling children how to behave and
in particular telling them to misbehave.
And then he and his fellow travelers
complaining when his authority is questioned. I say what is sauce
for the goose is also sauce for the the duck and the gander as well.
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck ... go find some sauce.

[padraighh]

To illustrate the difference between Pullmans brave new world
(or is it just a reprise of the evils of materialism in the last century)
and the Christian world I have selected two poems the first a poem by Robert Herrick

What sweeter music can we bring,
Than a carol, for to sing
The birth of this our heavenly King?
Awake the voice! Awake the string!

Dark and dull night, fly hence away,
And give the honor to this day,
That sees December turned to May.

Why does the chilling winter's morn
Smile like a field beset with corn?
Or smell like a meadow newly shorn?

Thus on the sudden come and see
The cause why things thus fragrant be

'Tis He is born, whose quickening birth
Gives life and luster, public mirth,
To heaven, and the under-earth.

We see Him come, and know Him ours,
'Who, with His sunshine, and His show'rs,
Turns all the patient ground to flow'rs.

The darling of the world is come,
And fit it is, we find a room

To welcome Him, to welcome Him
The nobler part
Of all the house here,
is the heart,

Which we will give Him; and bequeath
This holly, and this ivy wreath,
To do Him honor; who's our King,
And Lord of all this reveling.
(Robert Herrick b. 1591)

This is of course the view of the child in us,
for no one thinks that December turns to May
and yet when we think on it we know that this
embodies our hope at Christmas tide and the hope of the resurrection.

The festival of Christmas more than any other festival known to man
anticipates the joys of heaven.
Pullman and his ilk like the White Witch in
The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe
want it to be always winter and never Christmas.

Can this be any coincidence? Is Pullman not the Anti-Lewis, but
more openly and consciously fighting a man who can not fight back.
And isn't he just a little pathetic for it all. I think Matthew Arnolds poem
expresses the view that Pullman would like to plant in every little beating heart.

Dover Beach

The sea is calm to-night.
The tide is full, the moon lies fair
Upon the straits; on the French coast the light
Gleams and is gone; the cliffs of England stand;
Glimmering and vast, out in the tranquil bay.
Come to the window, sweet is the night-air!
Only, from the long line of spray
Where the sea meets the moon-blanched land,
Listen! you hear the grating roar
Of pebbles which the waves draw back, and fling,
At their return, up the high strand,
Begin, and cease, and then again begin,
With tremulous cadence slow, and bring
The eternal note of sadness in.

Sophocles long ago
Heard it on the A gaean, and it brought
Into his mind the turbid ebb and flow
Of human misery; we
Find also in the sound a thought,
Hearing it by this distant northern sea.

The Sea of Faith
Was once, too, at the full, and round earth's shore
Lay like the folds of a bright girdle furled.
But now I only hear
Its melancholy, long, withdrawing roar,
Retreating, to the breath
Of the night-wind, down the vast edges drear
And naked shingles of the world.

Ah, love, let us be true
To one another! for the world, which seems
To lie before us like a land of dreams,
So various, so beautiful, so new,
Hath really neither joy, nor love, nor light,
Nor certitude, nor peace, nor help for pain;
And we are here as on a darkling plain
Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,
Where ignorant armies clash by night.

[Columcille]

Grimreader, let's switch some words in your argument: so Marx/Lenin/Stalin/Hitler/Mohammad have some ideas you don't agree with. Big deal. Get over it. I'd like to think Christians have enough... blah, blah, blah.

Why oh why cannot Christians stand up for their faith and boldly declare something WRONG and that indeed, this competing emperor has no clothes on. Pullman can rail all day long, surrounded by sycophants about how Jesus and Christianity are frauds and the rest of us are supposed to react with a smile and a 'ho hum'. Why is that?

Ok I'll answer that: I think it's because we aren't supposed to worry about it because none of this is real anyway - a nod is as good as a wink to a blind horse, right? There is no God, or they're all the same, so don't get your twinkies in a twist. I'm mean, it's not like Jesus really was God, right? No biggy!

Stand up for Jesus or fall for the evil one.

[Carl Olson]

So they guy wrote a book you don't agree with. Big deal. Get over it. He's got every right to write what he likes.

So I wrote a post you don't agree with. Big deal. Get over it. I've got every right to write what I like.

[Carl Olson]

As a Roman Catholic, i find the kind of response to Pullman that you give embarrassing.

I guess I should have asked: Why? Why is it embarrassing to have a Catholic (or anyone, for that matter), point out the disingenuous and condescending nature of Pullman and Company's responses to critics? And why do you adopt the same sort of tone and approach?

I'd like to think my fellow christians had enough confidence in their faith not to gather up their skirts and shriek at the first sign of an atheistic mouse.

And I'd like to think my fellow Catholics would know the Faith well enough to recognize when it is being attacked and when they are being played for the fool.

[Mark Brumley]

Grimreader wrote:

So they guy wrote a book you don't agree with. Big deal. Get over it. He's got every right to write what he likes. As a Roman Catholic, i find the kind of response to Pullman that you give embarrassing. I'd like to think my fellow christians had enough confidence in their faith not to gather up their skirts and shriek at the first sign of an atheistic mouse.

He's got every right to write what he likes.

Did someone say that he doesn't have a right to write what he likes? If not, it seems that you are making an irrelevant assertion.

As a Roman Catholic, i find the kind of response to Pullman that you give embarrassing.

As a Roman Catholic, I find embarrassing the kind of response you give to Carl's response to Pullman. So what? Are we even? Is your statement of embarrassment intended to further this discussion? If so, it is hard to see how it does. Is it that you don't think what is said above about Pullman is accurate? Then point to the alleged inaccuracies. Or is it that you think it accurate, but you don't think Pullman's ideas are offensive or problematic? Then just say so and we can discuss that.

I'd like to think my fellow christians had enough confidence in their faith not to gather up their skirts and shriek at the first sign of an atheistic mouse.

Why does criticism of Pullman's anti-theistic, anti-Christian, anti-Catholic claims, or of his use of children's fantasy to present those claims, amount to a lack of confidence in one's faith? That seems to be the implication we are supposed to draw of your comment, but it is by no means evident that the conclusion follows from the premise.

How does it follow from the fact that one defends one's beliefs that one must, therefore, not have confidence in those beliefs? It would seem that a more reasonable prima facie claim would be that failure to defend one's beliefs implies a lack of confidence in those beliefs or at least of one's ability to defend them. Of course, I qualify the above as a prima facie case; there can be other reasons one doesn't choose to defend one's beliefs. But at least at first glance your reaction, grimreader, seems more suseptible to your own criticism of a lack of confidence than the view you seem to criticize. Can we agree that, per se, neither defending nor refraining from defending, one's beliefs indicates a lack of confidence in those beliefs?

One more point. Surely Christian criticism here of Pullman is based on the idea that children can be misled by the message and manner in which Pullman communicates it. You may dispute that children will be misled. If so, you should say as much. We can then openly debate the point. But surely if, as Carl, Sandra, and Pete think, Pullman's message can seriously mislead children, it is reasonable that they would speak out against the books and the film based on them.

[Gail]

I guess Laura Miller would be surprised to learn that my husband and I are both big readers. I was an honor student in both high school and college, and I'm currently studying for my Master's degree. I do not read or respond to hysterical emails, and the adults in my house enjoy opera, classic literature, and an eclectic array of music, writing, and movies.

Nevertheless, my kids will not be reading "His Dark Materials," not because of the movie (which they also will not be seeing) but because I heard about the series long ago. As Miller says, they aren't exactly secret. Pullman may be a gifted writer (I don't know whether he is or not) but talent at storytelling doesn't make it all right to attack the Catholic Church and, while he's at it, the beliefs of millions of other Christians. Talent, if he has it, makes the attack worse. And if this writer can't see that, then she isn't half as smart as she thinks she is.

I take storytelling -- whether in books, in movies, or on television -- seriously. I doubt that Mr. Pullman dashed these three books off one day for the fun of it. He was trying to do something specific with them, and I respect (and reject) that. Apparently for all her professed admiration, Laura Miller doesn't take Pullman very seriously. Or maybe she doesn't take anything very seriously, which is a distinct possibility.

Gail Finke

[Mark Brumley]

Also -- whoops! -- no one's been hiding "His Dark Materials."

Maybe the His Dark Materials trilogy hasn't been hidden but some folks seem eager to hide the anti-theistic message of the books.

Now consider that Coca Cola, which is promoting The Golden Compass, insists that there is no anti-religious agenda connected with the film. Either Pullman's agenda has been hidden from Coca Cola or Coca Cola doesn't care and is lying. Either way, it makes perfect sense to alert people to Pullman's agenda and for Christians to express their disagreement with that agenda.

[Little Gidding]

[SCENE 1]

[Ding Dong!]

JUNE CLEAVER: See who’s at the door, will you, Beaver?

BEAVER: It was the mailman with a package for us! Must be a Christmas present. Look, it’s free tickets to The Golden Whompass, that new kids’ holiday movie we’ve been seeing commercials for! The one that’s sort of like The Lord of the Rings and The Chronicles of Narnia.

JUNE CLEAVER: No, Beaver, I think it’s called The Broken Compass or something.

BEAVER: Can we go, Mom? Please? Instead of watching The Bells of St. Mary’s again this Christmas? It’s got armored polar bears and teenage heroes and stuff!

JUNE CLEAVER: Well, let me see the envelope. It says here it’s recommended by the Catholic Bishops. Okay, Beaver, I’ll talk to your father about it. I think there’s no reason why we can’t do something a little different this Christmas. I bet he’ll say okay—it stars that pretty Catholic girl he likes.

[SCENE 2]

WARD CLEAVER: [To Beaver] Young man, you’re going to have to explain to me what these books were doing under your mattress.

BEAVER: Gee, what books do you mean, Dad?

WARD CLEAVER: I mean these, Beaver—The Book of the Law by Aleister Crowley, Madness and Civilization by Michel Foucault, and The Gay Science by Friedrich Nietzsche.

BEAVER: Well, Dad, after we all saw that movie and mom ran away with Eddie Haskell, I thought about it a lot and decided I needed to grow up. So I talked to Miss Canfield and she gave me and Penny Woods some lessons after school. Being an adult is neat, Dad, even if it means that God is dead, because it also means we all get to do whatever we want!

WARD CLEAVER: Well, I guess we all have to grow up some time, Theodore. But what’s this piece of paper in the Crowley book? It looks like a bill from the Mayfield Women’s Emergency Health Clinic for “procedures” for Penny Woods.

BEAVER: Dad, do you have a thousand dollars? I spent all the money from my paper route on that bong you borrowed last night.

[Nick Milne]

BEAVER: Gee, what books do you mean, Dad?

WARD CLEAVER: I mean these, Beaver—The Book of the Law by Aleister Crowley, Madness and Civilization by Michel Foucault, and The Gay Science by Friedrich Nietzsche.

I have two of those books in my room right now :(

[Peter Woods]

My mother read the first two of the Dark Materials trilogy,she said she could not read the third book because the story was getting too ridiculous and absurd. My mother is in her 90s so she has been around the block. When I saw the The Golden Compass had been made in a movie,I decided to read the trilogy myself. Like a lot a people the series deteriates as it goes forward. I think Mr. Pulman just wanted a quick buck because the critics gave him such high praise. I own and read over a thousand books of fanatasy genre;with such authors as David Eddings,Terry Brooks,Katherine Kurtz, J.R.R.Tolkein,and many other delightful authors too numerous to mention. Well that my two bits worth.

[Mark Brumley]

Little Gidding: lots of fun. Serious fun, though. The bit about the recommendation from the USCCB is devastating. Lots of people don't read the reviews but many people look at the recommendations in diocesan newspapers and go with them. Plus, thanks to the promotions of THE GOLDEN COMPASS spin department, some people who rarely see the USCCB film reviews will be told the US bishops have approved the film and they will think those of us who are criticizing it are excessive. Thanks, Mr. Forbes.

[fr richard]

Well written, Carl.

Miller: "They recognize him not as an enemy but as an ally in a society increasingly colonized by the vapid preoccupations of consumer culture."

Carl: ""We are material objects with no meaning or purpose to our lives. Buy my books! Watch my movie! Nitwits!"

Loved that.

[Mary]

Your mother got one book further than I did. I read the first chapter of the second book and didn't care what happened to the characters.

[Dan]

As I mentioned in an earlier thread about the anti-Catholicism of the LA Times, the Sunday book section is where one can usually find an anti-Catholic remark or gratuitous insult. This article is a perfect example. Why is this article even in the Book Review section? It is not a review of the books, which were published years ago. The only explanation I can think of is that the Book Review editors needed to get their weekly anti-Christian jab in and this was the best they could come up with.