I’m a big fan of fiction. Fantasy, science-fiction, you know, the wild and imaginative stuff. I enjoy the Harry Potter Series, Lord of the Rings, Chronicles of Narinia, works by Issac Assimov, short stories by Damon Knight, Riverworld series by Philip Jose Farmer, and the younger authors like Cory Doctorow…etc, etc.

So when His Dark Materials by Philip Pullman hit the news I thought I might enjoy them, too.

Sure, they are biting atheistic critiques of religious organization and thought. I’m not intimidated by that. In fact, I enjoy reading well thought out critiques on any topic. Arthur C. Clarke can be classed in this category to some degree. He’s an avowed humanist and pushes his imagination to the hilt to explore a world governed solely by natural laws that evolves far into the future. Breathtaking imagery. I respect him greatly. And the ideas are as fascinating as the man.

There’s a bit of controversy about the new movie, The Golden Compass. Apparently, the book is a blunt answer to blunt religious overtones in the Chronicles of Narnia. Many atheists and humanists have been hailing Pullman as *the* C.S. Lewis-like author for their side. “Finally,” they say, “fantasy children’s books we can read to our children!”

But the movie, in grand Hollywood fashion, waters down the language and graphic attack on organized religion…aka Churches. So the atheists are really pissed off. But wait…the watering down didn’t help at all among the religious crowd because the movie is still based on a book in a trilogy by a man who hates anything religious and wants to see it quashed. Show me a better example of, “you can’t please everybody”.

But they tried. Thus far, the box office results haven’t been good. The sequel movies may not get studio backing. But…that’s not why I’m writing this post.

Philip Pullman has raised the blood pressure of a key audience segment…fantasy buffs. Apparently, since he despises Lewis and Tolkien, he’s trying to distance himself from their genre. Check this out, straight from the FAQs on his website:

You once said that His Dark Materials is not a fantasy, but stark realism. What did you mean by that?

That comment got me into trouble with the fantasy people. What I mean by it was roughly this: that the story I was trying to write was about real people, not beings that don’t exist like elves or hobbits. Lyra and Will and the other characters are meant to be human beings like us, and the story is about a universal human experience, namely growing up. The ‘fantasy’ parts of the story were there as a picture of aspects of human nature, not as something alien and strange. For example, readers have told me that the daemons, which at first seem so utterly fantastic, soon become so familiar and essential a part of each character that they, the readers, feel as if they’ve got a daemon themselves. And my point is that they have, that we all have. It’s an aspect of our personality that we often overlook, but it’s there. that’s what I mean by realism: I was using the fantastical elements to say something that I thought was true about us and about our lives.

WTF?

I need to say that again.

WTF?!?!?

Does he really think he’s invented a new genre? Is he really that pissed at “fantasy” parts of stories? Who’s he kidding? His daemon characters aren’t real. He even says that. They are just as imaginary as elves and hobbits. They are part of a story that he believes relates to real life (starkly, as he puts it). Dude, give Lewis and Tolkien some slack! They at least believed they were doing the same thing. The hubris here is astounding.

Again, I have no problem with his desire to use fantasy as a tool to advance his concerns. He has that right in our country, and he has that obligation as an artist. But, hey, it IS fantasy! And that’s okay, Phil!

Philip Jose Farmer wrote an incredible sci-fi fantasy series revolving around Riverworld. To sum up, imagine for some unknown reason all humans that ever lived were resurrected on a single planet all at the same time. No one really dies and no one really knows why they are there. Yeah, this brief synopsis doesn’t do the plot lines justice. Bear with me, please.

Farmer’s plot is so fantastical that everyone knows it’s not supposed to be real. What’s wrong with that? That’s the point of fantasy. That doesn’t stop him from unwrapping all kinds of drama to reflect on the human condition. And Farmer is not pushing a religious agenda like Pullman accuses Lewis of doing.

In this instance, Pullman reminds me of “that guy” who easily grows agitated and ironically defends himself, “No I am NOT ANGRY. NO, I AM NOT SHOUTING!!!!”

Phil, you are a fantasy fiction writer. Yes your stuff is genre comparable to Lewis’. And yes, that’s okay. Get over it.

I read Dante’s Inferno when growing up and like most who were assigned it in school, we only read that first part and weren’t assigned the rest of the Divine Comedy. Alas I don’t remember many specifics so I’m curious to dust it off again. But this article I just read put a different spin on it and made me want to read the whole thing Dante wrote. Take this quote:

When it comes down to it, though, the real problem modern readers have with [third section about heaven] is the idea of heaven itself. T.S. Eliot noted almost 80 years ago that “we have (whether we know it or not) a prejudice against beatitude as material for poetry.”

Wow. As a poet I’ve often noticed how I enjoy mining for material in tension and conflict. I’ve even asked myself if I’m capable of writing something that conveys joy in ways that aren’t cheesy. It’s so easy being cheesy, after all. Erm….I rest my case :-)

Dante’s hell seems a more enjoyable read to me. His vision of heaven I assumed couldn’t be any where near as captivating. This article poked at that assumption and I hope it pokes at yours as well. Here’s another quote:

Dante’s hell flatters us: It allows us to stand in judgment, to delight in the friction between what we know and what the damned don’t; to see things, in other words, from the perspective of God. Paradiso, however, puts us back in our place. Though the poet labors mightily to “show the merest shadow/ of the bless’d kingdom stamped within my mind,” he never lets us forget that it is only a shadow. Once we follow him to heaven, it’s we who lack the inside information, we who stand on the wrong end of the irony. Previously we judged hell; now heaven judges us.

I love The Slate. I’m more and more impressed with them and especially their religious coverage. I’ve covered some other articles I’ve found interesting before, too. I hope they keep up this kind of grand cultural reflection. It gives news a good name.

I admire Radiohead. You may not. It’s actually becoming chic to “hate” them. I guess that’s inevitable in this day and age. Popularity is meant to be scorned. Anyway, for the lovers out there, you might find this article interesting.

David Byrne and Thom Yorke on the Real Value of Music

The article is kinda like buckshot hitting all kinds of topics. The first that hit me was from the included audio interview (on the sidebar) where Thom talked about their process to write “Videotape”. I love that song. Haunting. Rythmic. Fascinating lyrics. And apparently, not at all in the style that Thom wanted it done. The process they describe sounds familiar to me, and it’s good to see that even the “successful” wrestle over and over again with the details.

The second topic that hit me came toward the end. What’s all the fuss about: record labels suing people for sharing files, artists crying out about their interests, music moguls wincing at the thought of a changing business model (cause, you know, it worked so well for so long!). What about the value of the music itself? Read the article to get more context. Thom doesn’t answer the question and alas it’s only touched briefly, but it’s got me thinking. Must do some more processing…

I’m glad that Radiohead wasn’t taking their album release too seriously. Sure it was a big deal for a big name band to let fans name their own price for a download, but it really was a gimmick. An experimental and interesting gimmick, but just for kicks nonetheless.