Quote:
Originally Posted by Honour
They aren't "messed up," they just don't belong in fantasy. And especially not children's fantasy.
|
I don't see why not.
Quote:
|
Narnia isn't a comparison. Children who have not been educated in Christianity (and many are, these days) will not understand the symbolism in the Narnia books. Though it is there, obvious, and definitely proclaims its own agenda, the pro-religion in Narnia is much more subtle than what I have heard of The Golden Compass.
|
Oh? I seem to recall an omnipotent lion who forgives sins and rises from the dead to defeat an evil sorceress who was kicked out of a mystical garden for eating the forbidden fruit.
The anti-organized religion parts of GC are not subtle, I grant you, but when I first read it I didn't notice any anti-religion sentiment. In fact, it really isn't anti-religion. Why not? Because at no point does it call religion stupid or useless, nor does ti try to disprove religion.
Rather, Pullman decided that a Chruch would make the best authoritarian entity, which makes perfect sense, considering the role it's played in human history. This is not the thread to argue about justification or morality, but you can't deny that the Catholic church has been (and, to an extent, still is) very authoritarian and would like to have complete control over the world.
Quote:
|
Personally, I disagree with any book which directly promotes or tries to incite "rebellion" against any religion, Christianity or not. Had this book targeted Muslims, it still would have been in poor taste. Anti-religion is basically pitting you against ninety percent of the world or more, so it's best to be careful about it. Christians simply put up with it. Many other religions would incite violence over such a book.
|
We should only express opinions that agree with the majority?
Quote:
|
How would Muslims react to such a book aimed at their religion?
|
Somehow I can't see Anime_Queen going on a rampage over it.
Quote:
|
That is another reason why the book is a problem. When one like this comes out, you can be sure someone will try something stupid and pull it with a book against Islam or a book against Wicca or a book against Buddhism, in which case there will be just as much outrage. Anti-religion belongs in books specially for that purpose, not fantasy.
|
I strongly disagree. If you're arguing that we shouldn't allow these things because they offend adults: Then the Narnia books should certainly be banned. In addition, what of political allegories? Should we ban Gulliver's Travels because it might offend people? Should we destroy the works of all satirists such as Terry Pratchett?
No, I think it's perfectly fine to express your personal opinions when writing fiction. After all, you must express some sort of opinion, and so it should probably be your own, no?
If your opinion is controversial that's fine: By not exposing children to controversy you greatly reduce their ability to live with it. If they're brought up knowing only one view, I rather doubt that they'll react well to finding out that there are other, opposing, views out there. (In fact, I blame most bigotry on people simply being exposed to only one viewpoint for most of their lives.)
In addition, if the book is no threat to religion, why complain? If it is a threat, the religion may want to look at why, exactly, a piece of children's fantasy can apparently demolish it.
I do think I see where you're coming from, not long ago I probably would've agreed. However, I feel that free speech is probably
the most important civil right granted to people (It is no accident that language is targeted by the government in
1984, Orwell knew what he was writing about.) By saying that certain things just shouldn't be written you seem, at least, to be saying that free speech should be limited.
That, really, puts us at odds. Since in this case I'd side with Voltaire: "I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it."