Realmscapes

The Golden Compass and Liberalism

"The most telling aspect of His Dark Materials ... is that the Reformation never happened in the world of The Golden Compass. Indeed, Pullman's simplistically harsh view of the church and God posit a power-hungry, misanthropic institution out of control, and a detached, domineering God devoid of grace."

The above assessment by historian, Dr Quinn Fox, is also the feeling I have from the book (and film). It definitely is a darker and deeply cynical work; it is certainly an antithesis to Lewis's Narnia. Why would we want to expose children to such an atmosphere? Even more puzzling, how can an authour simply brush away world history in his fantasy tale? Given what the Magestarium represents, his book would have been more fitting for the 15th century than the 20th or 21st.

Liberalism and its secular religions of atheism, agnosticm, and humanism seem largely made up of people who are paranoid of everything--most especially a "highr power". God encourages us to question, but liberals go beyond this to poke and doubt everything and everyone to the point of madness. HIS DARK MATERIALS is simply one on-ramp to that highway of darkness and the ironic thing is that paranoia usually leads to an obsession to control, and that can lead to the very authoritarian tyranny that Pullman's books encourage us to fight.

As an authour I have to think that Pullman missed the boat. His trilogy of books could have gone to a vastly more rewarding and upbeat conclusion. What if the characters got to the end and found that the Magestarium was indeed evil, not because it derived its power from its Authority (aka God), but because it decided to take power from the Authority? What if the ultimate quest of the books had been to free the Authority so that all could benefit from the goodness and light that the Magestarium wanted no part of?

The Golden Compass

I generally do not support activism when it comes to literature. I admonished parts of the Christian community for their extremist stand on the Harry Potter series, and I urged clear-thinking when it came to Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code. I am a firm believer that if you raise a child strongly rooted in the Christian faith, then they will be able to read books like Harry Potter and discern the many positive elements from those elements that are better left to the fictional world (using magic and all that). But the controversy surrounding Pullman's HIS DARK MATERIALS trilogy is very different.

Marvel's "Civil War"

In light of this Captain America death, I am trying to understand exactly what is going on here. The writers of the story-arc admit that there is political allegory as it relates to The Patriot Act.

Therein lies the problem: The Patriot Act was written to protect Americans against terrorist attacks, specifically another 9/11. It does not read the e-mail or tap the phones of EVERY American as the Democrats and media leads law-abiding Americans to believe.

Now in the comic book, The Superhero Registration Act is meant to register all superheroes in an attempt to control the mayhem that is caused when heroes and villains lock up. So if the comic is a commentary on The Patriot Act then the writers are giving a very false representation of what The Patriot Act is.

The libs in this country contend fiercely that The Patriot Act is a violation of civil liberties... which it is not. The Superhero Act is also considered a violation of civil liberties... which it is.

The Superhero Act is something out of communism or Nazism: implemented in order to track certain races, cultures, and political/religious beliefs; it is dangerous in that it sets the precedent for the government to require registration of anyone with a difference. That would mean that the comic is an commentary against communism/socialism/fascism--which is GOOD. But Marvel is releasing this thing at a time where the media is labeling The Patriot Act as a violation of civil liberities and the Bush Administration as Nazis. Meaning many of Marvel's readers are thinking right away of The Patriot Act and not of political theory.

The Patriot Act and The Superhero Registration Act are NOT the same thing. The story only confuses and blurs the lines of the debate. If this was intentional (and it sounds like it is) then allowing readers to discuss the comic in light of The Patriot Act is cowardly and irresponsible of Marvel.

P.S. And I still think Marvel killed Cap becasuse he is too conservative a character for the otherwise mostly liberal entertainment industry.

RIP Captain America

So Marvel has killed Captain America, proof that the liberals in this country are pushing the front ever further. And you know it's true when MSNBC jumps at the chance to print a story reflecting their own personal fantasy: "Death to 'America'"

It's sad that Marvel has to kill a character because they can't deal with the fact that Cap is supposed to symbolise everything that has made this country so great in the modern world. They haven't been able to write him to fit liberalism since they first tried it after Watergate. They have been pushing it again post-9/11 and during the Iraq War, but sales have not been there (except for the Winter Soldier story arc). ..They put Cap on the side of liberals (the Anti-Registration group) in Civil War and the reaction has been mute at best. Know why?

Because it is Captain America. For those of you who are reading this and know America's role in history and the things it has achieved and given to its citizens as well as the citizens of the world, then you know why I have put that in italics. You also know why you haven't been buying Captain America books, except for those select issues that contain the Cap we all expect. Marvel can't deal with that so they killed him with a "if we can't have him then you won't have him either" attitude.

Marvel isn't the only one to blame. DC is as well with their castrating of Superman's motto into "Truth, Justice...and all that other stuff"

All that other stuff?

Shameful.

The Da Vinci Code -- [check]

Aside from the loose historicity of the content--lots of leaps, lots of stretching--the book was a solid historical adventure novel. Dan Brown certainly can write, I'll take nothing from him on that point. Even part of the end (which really is two parts--one part theoretical conclusion, one part personal) was touching.

Where I would criticise the book the harshest is in the pages before the story even begins: the "everything in this book is proven fact" page. This is the book's farthest stretch, and unfairly plays on a reader's potential naivete. In fact, it is an outrage. Especially when so much of the book is based on symbologic interpretation, well-known speculative history (the fate of Dagobert II), and proven fraudelent documents (the "Dossiers Secrete"). Calling these things proven fact is exceptionally careless on the part of the authour, all apparently in the name of notoriety. If not careless, then the authour owes the world an explanation of is intentions in writing this piece of fiction. If he has an agenda and/or believes in the theories he is writing, then have some guts and spell it out plainly so that people reading his books can make an educated decision, or at least keep his prejudices in context when reading his work.

C.S. Lewis & Current Literature

From C.S. Lewis' An Experiment in Criticism:

Admitted fantasy in precisely the kind of literature which never deceives at all. Children are not deceived by fairy-tales; they are often and gravely deceived by school stories. Adults are not deceived by science-fiction; they can be deceived by the stories in the women's magazines. None of us are deceived by the Osyssey, the Kalevala, Beowulf, or Malory. The real danger lurks in sober-faced novels where all appears to be very possible but all is in fact contrived to put across some social or ethical or religious or anti-religious 'comment on life'.

Anti-Christianity: The Literary Agenda

Hey all! Remember, I'm always here, just haven't been posting for various reasons. The mental smell of freshly cut grass on a baseball field does wonders for chasing away the horrible Winter Dementors...

...but not the anti-Christian propagandists.

Short and sweet: Another Templar book has hit you local B&N/Borders front store displays. This one is called The Templar Legacy. But it may as well be called The Last Templar (which came out barely a month before), which itself may as well be a Da Vinci Code spinoff. The book has got the same secret agent put hot on the trail of discovering the Templar Order's great secrets... or in the case of all these books, that the Templars always knew that the Resurrection never existed. :yawn:

Three books in such rapid succession. And one dream in all of them: that Christianity is a hoax. Why destroy the Christian Faith? Is is really so unbearable that we need to it needs stamping out like a pest? Is it really the desire of the world to kill the message of Hope and Everlasting Life?

In the secular mind: Of course it is.

The Leave-taking

In response to a comment I posted in his blog in regards to The Return of the King (extended edition), Mr. Ersinghaus made this statement:

"I find that LOTR is a sad tale all the way around, much as is the tale of Arthur. All the cool people leave “us” to fend for ourselves."

I don't know what is more sad: the apparent fact or the actual statement. Do our heroes leave us and the end of a story? My initial reaction was to pass this off as modern cynicism. But Mr. Ersinghaus is a Teacher, and Teachers challenge us to look at "fact" to determine Truth.

Thinking back to all the stories I have watched or read, I do find it interesting that I dread the end page or end credits most when it comes to the realm of Fantasy and adventure--The Princess Bride, Sherlock Holmes, and The Lord of the Rings being the worst. But yet, Star Wars, Highlander, Indiana Jones, and James Bond do not give me this feeling of betrayal. Why--especially with Episode III done and done?

Well, Star Wars books, video games, and comics--and now a TV show--keep Star Wars coming to me one way or another.

Like Zorro, The Dread Pirate Roberts, and The Phantom, James Bond will always return, even if the face (or mask in the case of the others) of the man behind the gun changes.

And with Indy...well, I still haven't read all the books or watched all the Young Indy chronicles, so Indy has some time in my brain before he ges anywhere. Plus the virtual world of video games keeps his whip crackin'

But Highlander poses an interesting situation. It still has a lot that is untapped since it is a realm that has been with us for thousands of years right through today. And in fact, the franchise is returning with a new trilogy of movies. Ah! But this new trilogy is seemingly about the origins of The Immortals, and that had me nervous from the moment I read this. I find that I don't want the Immortals' source of their immortality fully explained. And on top of that, I have a hard time watching the series past season 4...even though season 5 and 6 had quality episodes. I've always been aware of a subtle reasoning that watcing those last two seasons gives Highlander a certain finality. This is encouraged by the fact that Duncan "leaves" the series, causing a mid-season cancellation in its final year.

So this behaviour on my part certainly looks to give credence to Mr. Ersinhaus's notion. Giving it further strength is that Return of the Jedi and Return of the King are my least favorite of the sagas. And how about this: movies that are put on two DVDs (or needed two VHS tapes) rarely have left their place in the case. It's as if by me not watching them, I can somehow prevent the story from ever being concluded. And so I "cunningly" keep my heroes in limbo.

But as naive as this may be, am I sad for the ending of the story because I believe my heroes are abandoning me? I don't think so. Heroes are great for all kinds of things, but they can't be with us all the time. Perhaps the reason why society feels so betrayed is because real life takes our real world  heroes--our family... our friends... our champions. So we turn to King Arthur and Aragorn and Duncan MacLeod and expect them to be their for us no matter what. But when they die for their noble causes or ride off into the sunset with their Princess Brides, How dare they! How dare they leave us to fight in this world alone! Mortals in this world die, but the rules of this world aren't supposed to apply to fiction and fantasy... are they?

But if they didn't, how would we love them so much? How could we possibly identify with our Heroes if they didn't feel and overcome the same pain as we do? After we win these battle in our lives we expect to pass on to the next world or to enjoy a time of rest with the ones we love. So why not or Heroes? Don't they deserve a reward for a hard day's work being our Heroes?

I also see in Mr. Ersinghaus's statement a deeper wound. For a time, God walked among us--literally. Sometimes he was a cloud, other times a whisper of wind. But He was always close. Always just a head turn away. And when He came as the Messiah, society followed Him like sheep with an unquechable thirst. But then He Died. Yeah, He rose and all that, but God left. He went back to Heaven. The greatest Hero ever "walked away" from us, and society has never been able to deal with it since. We fought Crusades and created holy relics and the Pope to try touch Him. There are many Christians convinced that the End of the World will bring about His Thousand-year Reign of this world.

We blame the pain of this wound on everyone who leaves us--real or fictional. Every time a loved one passes on or a fictional hero bids us farewell, we snarl or sigh. A seeming reminder of the bitterest of "betrayals". To answer Mr. Ersinghaus's statement I would paraphrase someone who is definately a wise and favorite Hero to me and other Star Wars fans:

Our focus determines our reality.