So, I was interested in reading The Golden Compass series by Phillip Pullman (The Golden Compass, The Subtle Knife, The Amber Spyglass) because some parents have asked us to remove it from the shelf at the school lbrary. After hearing the allegations about the books (that they are intended to persuade children to become atheists), I was feeling like people had not given them a chance. I had already begun to read The Golden Compass before I had heard about any of the controversy, after all, and there was nothing that I could find that was questionable. So I continued to read. Even after the second book, it seemed as though he was only speaking out against corrupt religion, which I think is a good thing. Not too far into the third book, however, it was clear that he believes all religion is corrupt.
The premise of the books is essentially that there was an angel a long time ago that put himself above the other angels and called himself God and the Creator (even though he was not) and that his goal is to keep people from gaining knowledge(that's why gaining knowledge was the original sin). The rebel angels (you know, that 1/3 from the war in heaven) have been fighting against him ever since and trying to help humans learn. And they enlist the help of two children to help them destroy God and create the Republic of Heaven (rather than the Kingdom).
There's a lot more to the stories, of course, and they are well written and interesting, but they still really hurt my feelings. In his books, the only religious people are either power-hungry hypocrites or fearful and ignorant. He writes about love and accepting people even with their faults (his main characters are flawed on purpose, I think) and the power of human relationships and following your instincts and the great value of learning. I am in complete agreement with pretty much everything he writes about those things. He seems to have a good understanding of how we all interact with and need each other. But the major flaw I see is that his goal is to show that religion is the antithesis of all of those good things; it is only useful for repressing people. So, while he may know a lot about life, he is quite ignorant about religion and people's reasons for being religious. Maybe he should stick to writing about things with which he is familiar.
For the record, I still don't think it should be removed from the shelves at school. As Anna said to me, "Nothing good ever came from censorship." I agree. It would probably create more problems than it would solve. And I want to have my freedom of expression protected, so I can't take away someone else's. Still, I think parents should be making informed decisions about what their children are reading.
4 comments:
Wow! Thanks for the update. I really enjoyed your take on the books. I too prefer to read the books before my kids because it's always better to know what they are getting into. Thanks for the good tip.
I am glad to have your personal review which further supports reports I'd read. However, I don't agree 100% about the censorship comment. To say that all censorship is bad is not an accurate statement. As parents, censorship of the media to which our children are exposed is one of our primary responsibilities, especially in this day and age. That is different from censorship of power-hungry governments or officials. That being said, part of a parent's responsibility of censorship is to be as informed as possible about the media which they allow their children to be exposed. The repsonsibility of a parent or leader to censor for the protection of children or innocent individuals who may be harmed without it is different from censorship used to maintain power and repress people.
Oops- I'm not familiar with the system yet. I accidentally posted that last comment aunonymously. That was me, Linda. BTW, Karen, thanks for the Blog. One of these days I'll actually contribute to it.
Thanks, Linda. It is of course our duty to protect our children from harmful literature. I am in favor of home censorship, both for things inappropriate and inane. Sorry for the blanket statement on censorship.After talking on the phone with you, I think we agree. We were just speaking from different perspectives.
Post a Comment