The Sci Fi Catholic Yak Module
Yeah, had enough.
All the same, it's probably more fun to watch the reaction to the books than read the books, from what I know about them.
Histor
Thanks for not lumping me in with the nuts 
As I mentioned, I'm all for individuals deciding whether or not to offer their financial support to Pullman. The organized boycott idea (which I'm guessing would include pickets) puts me off though because, as the old saying goes, any publicity is "good" publicity. Kevin Smith continuously thanks the Catholic League for the increased ticket sales for Dogma.
Wouldn't it be great if this turns out to be another over-hyped stink fest like the Da Vinci Code movie? I guess we'll know in a week or so.
Advance reviews, from what I've had come down the wire, are mixed. We are probably looking at a competent movie here, but it probably isn't another Lord of the Rings. Maybe closer to Chronicles of Narnia, which I suppose is appropriate.
Oh, and I forgot to reiterate: I partly owe these novels for my conversion. Pullman did not jeopardize my faith, but he did give me my interest in Catholicism. I really do not believe any intelligent, well-grounded Catholic adult needs to fear that reading these novels would constitute doing something that would endanger his faith. Perhaps another reason I can't really support a boycott.
These books may not endanger the faith of any "well-grounded catholic adult", however they are aimed at children. Books that - apart from any theological implications - show angels having homosexual sex being aimed at children. Not even teenagers, but children.
Catholig
The books don't show angels having homosexual sex, not that I recall. No, I wouldn't give them to children.
The books don't show angels having homosexual sex
Speaking of angels and seedy deeds, have you seen the Aussie film "Gabriel" advertised ove there yet? I think it is due for release there in December.
I link a couple of reviews on my blog but I haven't seen it yet myself. I think it's a wait-for-DVD release movie (at best).
My reason for bringing it up is that it barely scraped a profit in Australia (5th at the box office on its opening weekend) but could do much better in the USA if some agitaters decide to ban or boycott it.
Surely it's like having a child that misbehaves fro attention. You *don't* give him attention, even negative attention, because you encourage him to continue the attention grabbing behaviour!
I hadn't heard of Gabriel, I'll have to look that one up. I'm a little gun shy, though, after D. G. D. convinced me to watch The Fallen Ones. (40 Ft tall mummified Nephilim. And they think I watch weird stuff.)
I think that as followers of Christ we should engage the culture and be thoughtful in our criticism and not just reactionary. I keep hearing all this talk about banning the movie..I am going to see the movie and we are taking our Middle School kids(those who want to come), and talk afterwards about the worldview issues. Let's have an intellectual and thoughtful discuss about the ideas and not just being afraid of them.
I posted some thoughts about the Golden Compass on my blog here:
http://provocativechurch.blogspo...r-of-
story.html
Also, I think that the ChristianityToday piece by Jeffery Overstreet, which you posted, gives a balanced view and addresses questions and concerns Christians have about the books and movie.
Good stuff, thanx for the resources.
Thanks, Bill. I refer you too to EegahInc's discussion at The B-Movie Catechism. I think he nails it: you have the right not to give your money to things you disapprove of, but negative publicity ends up being, well, publicity.
Peter, I've never heard of it. Over here in self-absorbed United States, foreign films are with a few exceptions turkeys and rarely even make it into wide release. If it did so poorly in Australia, we may never hear of it.
EegahInc, you knew darn well that was a Sci Fi Original, so what did you expect?
I have come to the conclusion all of this debate is exactly what Pullman wants.
Like so many self centered individuals, he thrives on hearing his name....
He loves seeing it in print, hearing it on tv/radio, etc.
What I find so unconscionable, however, is how he describes the work of Tolkien and Lewis. That is the height of pomposity...
It would mean nothing to Pullman, but I am certain I am not the only one out here in 'nitwit' land who had never heard of him until the film was in production.
I don't know how much Pullman likes the limelight or doesn't like it. When I read this series years ago, I immediately hunted up interviews to find out what makes Pullman tick. They weren't hard to come by.
Whether Pullman likes the controversy or not, I think it will probably increase ticket sales and guarantee the film is a blockbuster, though it probably would have been, anyway.
whew, DGD, what a complete treatment! I'm impressed with your energy and your ability to see many sides of this issue. you say in passing that "...I think seeing the movie while supporting a boycott would swiftly open me to just charges of hypocrisy..."
I think this is the kernel of the issue.
The review at USCCB states that Weitz's film, viewed solely in cinematic terms "...can be viewed..as an exciting adventure story...". The Catholic League is not willing to allow this possibility, hence the boycott. I suspect that the reviewer's suggestion that the film takes a stand on free will (a positive stand) is what is really provoking the League to their extreme position. So maybe "free will" is the issue, in addition to atheism.
I'm not quite sure what you mean, Robert. The Catholic Church and the movie are agreed on the issue of free will, but not on some other issues.
Do you mean that the Catholic League is upset because the movie claims the Catholic Church wants to elliminate free will?
I really doubt if the Catholic League's boycott is prompted by anything other than Pullman's angry and empty attacks on Catholicism.
DGD,
yes, I'm speculating that the CL is upset because the review does find some things in the movie worthy of praise, among them the championing of free will against an oppressive theocracy. I've got to believe that there is more to the CL criticism than just the fact that Pullman is a professed atheist. If the boycott were merely because of the personal beliefs of the author, or the threat of later installments of the trilogy, it would make little sense, because the object of the boycott would be something other than the movie called the "Golden Compass". So I reason that the objections to the film probably are along plot lines, i.e., what I said above about free will and so on. I have not seen the film (and likely won't). But I have not heard that it mentions the Catholic Church by name, but rather that one of the central themes is oppressive religion.
The "Magisterium" is as good as a mention of the Catholic Church by name, so, in effect, the movie does indeed name the Catholic Church.
Personally, I'm not sure the boycott makes sense anyway, but I'm quite willing to believe that Donahue wants it boycotted for the very reasons he's named--because the film might inspire children to pick up the books, which do make unwholesome attacks on the Church.
Personally, my opinion of boycotts and bannings is generally low, partly because I don't think they work and partly because they're necessarily selective and rather arbitrary. If someone really sat down and read everythng in the middle school library, he would probably find worse things than His Dark Materials; but those things aren't the ones making headlines, so they don't get noticed, much the way His Dark Materials went largely unnoticed by Christian groups while everyone was bickering about Harry Potter.
That being said, I do think parents have the right to monitor what their children read and also prevent them from reading works they find unhealthy.
On another note, the poor opening weekend and the panning from critics might mean ixnay on the sequels.
Commenting by HaloScan
