Pullman takes on Lewis/Tolkien

Copperfox said:
About controversy selling: this is a good place to repeat that NOT everything immoral in popular culture is motivated by money. There are many in that sphere who are driven by a warped sense of "mission" to fight against the truth. For instance, there are women who campaign tirelessly for so-called "reproductive rights," a phrase meaning exactly the opposite of the words, because they really want to justify THEIR abortions.
Click to expand...

You know what I find curious? Christians often camp outside ABORTION clinics, claim is immoral, godless etc.

Non of them ever camp outside FERTILITY Clinics.

If I recall the bible correctly (No, I am not Christian for a while already), Aberham (sic) was rebuked by God for "helping along" God's plan by using his maid Hagar.

So what about all those families who use machines and science to get a child? Even knowing many viable cells are thrown away after a while?

-The Land of nod
 
The Catholic Church has always taught that assisted fertility techniques that involve conception outside of intercourse between a husband and wife is immoral and should not be performed. The reason you don't find protesters outside those clinics is primarily one of intent. People who go to fertility clinics may be using extraordinary techniques, but they are attempting a good end; i.e. a child. People who go to abortion clinics go there to kill a child, hence the protests.

There - I've answered your question, so let's get this thread back on topic.
 
PrinceOfTheWest said:
The Catholic Church has always taught that assisted fertility techniques that involve conception outside of intercourse between a husband and wife is immoral and should not be performed. The reason you don't find protesters outside those clinics is primarily one of intent. People who go to fertility clinics may be using extraordinary techniques, but they are attempting a good end; i.e. a child. People who go to abortion clinics go there to kill a child, hence the protests.

There - I've answered your question, so let's get this thread back on topic.
Click to expand...

ok, I think that is fair enough. I would say I am pro-choice, but then I remember stories about doctors recommending my mother to "plan for another child" and would understand if I had an "accident." So I was definitely not fond of of Abortion at that late of a term. But I still think birth control should be allowed. If nothing else to spare a girl's trauma of giving birth for a rapist.

=========================================================
On Pullman's side, I think he probably had a negative reaction like I did. I recall the first and only church I visited openly declared my homeland to be in thrall by satan and millions of chinese would match under his banner to start the last war of the bible. And what do I see in Church publications? Images not of China in its peaceful times or progess but the march of armies. Apparently he thought we chinese are some of Clone Soldiers made in George Lucas's vats. Not once ever concerned with the fact we have families too!

I personally wonder what set Pullman off. I can't imagine it was for the fun and dollars. Maybe God need to send someone down and have Q&A session to restore his faith.

-The land of Nod-
 
Finals week, not all of us got the time to watch yet. But LotR and Narnia had what? 50 years of time to soak into society? When is Golden Compass written? We all grew up with stories of Narnia, not everyone grew up with GC.

Oh, if making a movie is about win or lose, then Narnia lost to Da Devinc code and harry potter stone cold... Does that mean narnia sucked? I don't think so.

-The land of Nod-
 
The advantage of recognition and familiarity which the Narnian stories have is an advantage that was fairly earned by their high quality. During Mr. Lewis' lifetime, as now, plenty of books were published which made a short-lived splash, only to be forgotten. The Chronicles endured because they ring true in their messages of love, courage and faith.
 
Copperfox said:
The advantage of recognition and familiarity which the Narnian stories have is an advantage that was fairly earned by their high quality. During Mr. Lewis' lifetime, as now, plenty of books were published which made a short-lived splash, only to be forgotten. The Chronicles endured because they ring true in their messages of love, courage and faith.
Click to expand...

If Faith can translate sales then why do Passion of Christ came behind Da Devinc code? Why did harry potter beat out Narnia (and I mean each of the separate movie, not their sum)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_films

In order to be truly memorable, you have to be a "Industry mover" LoTR and CoN are both examples of something innovate at their time. (Giving a girl a Bow and put her in war? Unthinkable! In fact, Susan should had children of her own by her own age, by the time of the Last Battle she would either been a flozy or spinster for NOT getting married).

LoTR broke the barrier by creating brand new, existing worlds on their own, not just the old "In a kingdom far away a young hero slew a dragon and marry the princess and they lived happily ever after"

In contrast, Golden Compass and Eragon have a high hurdle to jump over.

-The Land of Nod
 
I mentioned Narnia having an honestly earned advantage. There is also such a thing as an UNDESERVED advantage. When "The Passion of the Christ" came out--in fact, starting before it was even released--the entrenched anti-Christian establishment in the mainstream news media commenced a relentless barrage of malicious false accusations that the movie had an anti-Jewish hate-message. (Funny, the JEWISH actress who played the mother of Jesus hadn't noticed any such bigotry.) By contrast, "The Da Vinci Code" received favorable publicity, with journalists blindly accepting as fact the demonstrably false claims Dan Brown made about church history.
 
The Land of NoD said:
Finals week, not all of us got the time to watch yet. But LotR and Narnia had what? 50 years of time to soak into society? When is Golden Compass written? We all grew up with stories of Narnia, not everyone grew up with GC.

Oh, if making a movie is about win or lose, then Narnia lost to Da Devinc code and harry potter stone cold... Does that mean narnia sucked? I don't think so.

-The land of Nod-
Click to expand...

But Rowling does not claimed that she is writing anti-Narnia and unlike Pullman, Dan Brawn always claimed that he is writing FICTION and that's all. Not that I like Brawn, but he is less evil than Pullman. And Rowling defends values in Harry Potter, which are similar (note - similar and not the same) to those, defended in Narnia. The comparisons between HDM and Narnia are because Pullman wanted badly to beat Narnia, but he is nowhere near that. And don't say, it is because his books are recent. Harry Potter books are newer than HDM.
HDM is nowhere near Harry, too.

About the Passion - this is a low-budger, R-rated movie which is not easy to view. I couldn't make myself watch it, for example. The Da Vinci Code is a high budget blockbuster. There is a difference.

But apart from this, BOM is not that important. DiR made less than $ 10 mln. in the US, but I watched it with pleasure. I would not pay for HDM a single penny.
 
Last edited:
Copperfox said:
I mentioned Narnia having an honestly earned advantage. There is also such a thing as an UNDESERVED advantage. When "The Passion of the Christ" came out--in fact, starting before it was even released--the entrenched anti-Christian establishment in the mainstream news media commenced a relentless barrage of malicious false accusations that the movie had an anti-Jewish hate-message. (Funny, the JEWISH actress who played the mother of Jesus hadn't noticed any such bigotry.) By contrast, "The Da Vinci Code" received favorable publicity, with journalists blindly accepting as fact the demonstrably false claims Dan Brown made about church history.
Click to expand...

1) The reason why many Jews don't like to remember Christ as a savior is because throughout the centuries people of Jewish faith had been attacked for their Christian neighbors (And we are not talking about Hitler here). The event ITSELF basically said the Jews killed the savior of the world, or Juda, a Jew betrayed Christ. Someone commented a Jew can be a Communist or Satanist buy not Christian, is because the two religion never organized crackdowns on the Judaism faith.

There is also the fact you don't have to be a Christian to even enjoy Narnia (like me, but admittingly harder now the confusing story of the Last Battle now made clear), but a non-Christian wouldn't enjoy POC very much.

2) The church certainly had events that justify suspicion and story. People always love to "stick it to the man" and the Catholic Church with it is rigid rule and blind excerise of power make it a tempting target. If the Catholic Church was truly god's agency on Earth, then aren't all of you folks here who are Christians heretics?

But Rowling does not claimed that she is writing anti-Narnia

But she did formally write she hate the way susan was threated in the story, how she had to endure her family's death "Just because she grew up".

And FYI, I never read Harry Potter and never will.

-The land of Nod-
 
The Catholic Church had also helped many poor people. It is easy to forget that, but that's the way thing are. It is an easy target, because it looks magnifecent and haters love to spit in shiny things, like monkeys.
About Mrs. Rowling, it is her right to disagree with certain aspects of Narnia story. Yet she never called Lewis with names Pullman did.:)
Maybe she is more civilized:p
 
inkspot said:
We have discussed this elsewhere, if I can find the thread, I will merge them.

basically, I think something happened to Pullman in his younger years which really, badly hurt him, and whether it was associated with someone or somethign in the church, or whether he just felt betrayed and chose to blame God, I don't know.

Whatever happened, I feel that his indignation toward religion, and his anger toward good authors who have a relligious faith, is really a reflection of pain and bitterness in his own heart. I do not like what he says about CSL and JRRT, but I can can also sense how wounded he is, because who would lash out with such venom if there were not some terrible wound causing him great pain? The only way he can even handle it is to turn it into gall and bitterness ...

I feel sorry for him, and I hope some day Jesus will take away his pain. :(
Click to expand...


Well said!:cool: Wow so he lashed out at Tolkien too? I need to inform my fellow Tolkien fans at Open Scrolls about this!:(
 
Darth Sparhawk said:
The Catholic Church had also helped many poor people. It is easy to forget that, but that's the way thing are. It is an easy target, because it looks magnifecent and haters love to spit in shiny things, like monkeys.
About Mrs. Rowling, it is her right to disagree with certain aspects of Narnia story. Yet she never called Lewis with names Pullman did.:)
Maybe she is more civilized:p
Click to expand...

Well we all tend to be remembered by our worst actions than best. I will leave it at that. Otherwise all of you on this board would be Catholic, not protestant, or Calvinist, or Mormon etc. Or are you going to tell me all non-catholic christians are hateful monkeys.

As for Ms. Rowling, well she joined a long list of authors who disliked the "susan incident."

Well said! Wow so he lashed out at Tolkien too? I need to inform my fellow Tolkien fans at Open Scrolls about this!

That kinda prove nothing, Tolkien hated Narnia too. He once claimed it was sub-par writing due to the fact the use of Christian themes meshed with pagan ones.

-The Land of Nod-
 
Oh, and someone will likely to bash me for claim I lied about JRR's Narnia hate, please read this article

Furthermore, Tolkien thought that there were too many conflicting elements that ultimately clashed, detracting from the whole. There were talking animals, children, witches, and more. Thus, in addition to being pushy, the book was overloaded with elements that threatened to confuse and overwhelm the children for whom it was designed.

In general, it appears that Tolkien didn’t think very much about Lewis’ efforts to write popular theology. Tolkien seemed to believe that theology should be left to the professionals; popularizations ran the risk of either misrepresenting Christian truths, or leaving people with an incomplete picture of those truths which would in turn do more to encourage heresy rather than orthodoxy.

Tolkien didn’t even always think that Lewis’ apologetics were very good. John Beversluis writes:

“[T]he Broadcast Talks prompted some of Lewis’s closest friends to make embarrassed apologies for him. Charles Williams ruefully observed that when he realized how many crucial issues Lewis had sidestepped, he lost interest in the talks. Tolkien also confessed that he was not “entirely enthusiastic” about them and that he thought Lewis was attracting more attention than the contents of the talks warranted or than was good for him.”

http://atheism.about.com/od/cslewisnarnia/a/jrrtolkein.htm
 
It's a well known fact that Tolkien didn't appreciate Lewis' Narnia series. The deeply mythological and detail-oriented Tolkien didn't like the casual way that Lewis approached his world. For instance, why did everyone speak English - even the Calormenes? Tolkien's problem wasn't so much the inclusion of pagan creatures, but the hodgepodge way that they were thrown together. As evidenced by his own carefully constructed world, to which he devoted his whole life, Tolkien wanted everything tied down and explained. If Tolkien had written Narnia, he would have had a full accounting of the history of the giants, a detailed genealogy of the heirs of King Frank, a strict accounting of the origin of Calormen, and the full story of Archenland. But then, if Tolkien had written Narnia, it would probably never have gotten published.

For that matter, Lewis didn't appreciate everything Tolkien wrote. He had much constructive input on Lord of the Rings that helped turn it from a schmaltzy children's story - like The Hobbit - into the literary masterpiece it is. Tolkien wrote it, but Lewis and the rest of the Inklings deserve credit for editing and encouraging.

Despite their literary differences, the two men were fast friends and deeply appreciated each other's Christian faith. In fact, it was Tolkien who helped Lewis convert to Christianity, partly through their deep love of mythology. They remained friends until death, and always contributed to each other's writings.

Really, LoN, you're going to have to do better than that. Tapping an atheism website for "facts" about the Inklings? Here, let me direct you to a little information about Nancy Pelosi on the Republican Congressional Committee website...
 
NoD, no one will call you a liar for saying that Mr. Tolkien hated the Narnian stories; most of us already knew that. But Mr. Tolkien hated them on a basis of style and method; he was not accusing his friend Mr. Lewis of being a racist.

As for Communists not systematically oppressing Jews: oohhhhh, yes they did!! I had a Ukrainian-born friend named Kessler, a World War Two Red Army veteran, who grabbed his first chance to emigrate from the Soviet Union because the Communists WERE systematically discriminating against Jews.

Now, something else you've missed by not joining us earlier is a number of clear explanations, by your humble servant among others, of the fact that there is a VERY big difference between an actual follower of Jesus and someone who slaps a Christian label on himself while not making the slightest attempt in reality to obey Jesus' teachings. REAL Christians in Europe, such as Dutchwoman Corrie ten-Boom, were the very people who risked their lives to RESCUE Jews from the Nazi terror.

In other business, it is not accurate to say that Dan Brown is any less depraved than Phillip Pullman. Although Brown acknowledged the specific plotline of "The DaVinci Code" to be fiction, he simultaneously claimed that it was BASED ON solid historical facts...but his "facts," in fact, were as fraudulently made up as Pullman's lies about Mr. Lewis being a racist. Brown claims as fact, for instance, that the canon of New Testament books was only recognized for the first time during the reign of the Emperor Constantine; but the ACTUAL fact is that church fathers living LONG before then were already attesting in their own writings that the New Testament books we know were divinely inspired. If you look at the end of his novel, you will see what all of his academic smoke and mirrors were always leading up to: he wants to get rid of Scriptural authority so he can promote unlimited promiscuous sex and call THAT "spiritual."
 
Copperfox said:
NoD, no one will call you a liar for saying that Mr. Tolkien hated the Narnian stories; most of us already knew that. But Mr. Tolkien hated them on a basis of style and method; he was not accusing his friend Mr. Lewis of being a racist.

As for Communists not systematically oppressing Jews: oohhhhh, yes they did!! I had a Ukrainian-born friend named Kessler, a World War Two Red Army veteran, who grabbed his first chance to emigrate from the Soviet Union because the Communists WERE systematically discriminating against Jews.

Now, something else you've missed by not joining us earlier is a number of clear explanations, by your humble servant among others, of the fact that there is a VERY big difference between an actual follower of Jesus and someone who slaps a Christian label on himself while not making the slightest attempt in reality to obey Jesus' teachings. REAL Christians in Europe, such as Dutchwoman Corrie ten-Boom, were the very people who risked their lives to RESCUE Jews from the Nazi terror.

In other business, it is not accurate to say that Dan Brown is any less depraved than Phillip Pullman. Although Brown acknowledged the specific plotline of "The DaVinci Code" to be fiction, he simultaneously claimed that it was BASED ON solid historical facts...but his "facts," in fact, were as fraudulently made up as Pullman's lies about Mr. Lewis being a racist. Brown claims as fact, for instance, that the canon of New Testament books was only recognized for the first time during the reign of the Emperor Constantine; but the ACTUAL fact is that church fathers living LONG before then were already attesting in their own writings that the New Testament books we know were divinely inspired. If you look at the end of his novel, you will see what all of his academic smoke and mirrors were always leading up to: he wants to get rid of Scriptural authority so he can promote unlimited promiscuous sex and call THAT "spiritual."
Click to expand...

Despite their literary differences, the two men were fast friends and deeply appreciated each other's Christian faith. In fact, it was Tolkien who helped Lewis convert to Christianity, partly through their deep love of mythology. They remained friends until death, and always contributed to each other's writings.
Click to expand...

1) Actually, JRR was a catholic, and Lewis was a protestant. And I am pretty
sure JRR was not happy with Lewis's conversion (and from more than one "source").

2) And I was responding to another poster saying "LE GASP! Pullman hated Tolkien!, must inform Tolkien fans so they can attack Pullman".

3)As regarding to DDC, I never watch the movie and barely glanced the book. I only pointed out if faith is the only quality to a movie, then Passion and Narnia should had out performed Harry Potter and Da Devinc Code.

4) Sorry, you may argue any Christian who don't operate on the side of forgiveness and good are just fools with a label, but to outsiders, that label is matter of fact. Centuries of Crusades often end up against Muslims for the holy land as well as their Jewish neighbors, and more often than not in the dark ages the burning of Jews were common, and usually under the religious banner "They KILLED the son of god."

Sure, you don't like the label? Well, I don't like to be labeled as a evil mass murder waiting to unleash my darkness on humanity as soon as the 08 oymphics either.

-The land of Nod-
 
Last edited:
The Land of NoD said:
1) Actually, JRR was a catholic, and Lewis was a protestant. And I am pretty sure JRR was not happy with Lewis's conversion (and from more than one "source").
Click to expand...
If you believe this, you bought into some serious misinformation. Tolkien helped bring about Lewis' conversion, something that is known from a number of sources including Lewis' own autobiography Surprised By Joy. The pivotal date and place is even known. The fact that Tolkien was Catholic and Lewis was Protestant made no difference to their friendship. Lewis could at times be discourteous about Catholicism, but that was more attributable to his Ulster upbringing than his actual attitudes. He knew and loved many Catholics, and carried on a long, courteous, and scholarly correspondence with Fr. Don Giovanni Calabria - correspondence which has been bound into a book that sits on my shelf.
 
NoD, are you aware of what Adolf Hitler did to try to put off the free world from opposing his invasion of Poland? He obtained or copied some Polish army uniforms...forced convicts from German prisons to put them on...had the prisoners shot dead, and their bodies deposited at the German-Polish border...then released photos of these corpses as "proof" that Poland had attacked Germany! Hitler also wanted gullible people to perceive his lie as fact. But it WAS a lie, it was NOT a fact, and it is also NOT a fact that actual Christians were the originators of anti-Jewish persecution.

"Don't like the label?" No, I don't; and if someone dressed like you, stole your car and ran over a child with it, you wouldn't like people saying that it was you at the wheel of the homicidal car, either. As for the Crusades, there's another area for setting the record straight which you seem to have missed by not joining the forum sooner; NOT ONE Crusade was launched into the land of Israel until AFTER several centuries of MUSLIM AGGRESSION against the Christian world had happened FIRST. This is fact, not opinion.
 
About the Crusades, I'd like to point that they happen centuries after the Muslims attacked Europe. Actually, an ancient Bulgarian ruler called Tervel helped the Byzantine Empire with their struggle against the Arabic invasion. By the time the Crusades happened, the Muslims had a vast Empire, which apetites to Europe are well known - The "Rum" Sultanate. Mind you, I am not trying to justify the Crusades. Just pointing that to paint the Christians as black and the others as white is a bit premature.
That's exactly what Pullman is doing, actually.
 
Back
Top