Tuesday, September 30, 2008 | Reason : In the News | print version

Print | Comments |

Pullman defiant over US protests against Northern Lights

by Guardian

Thanks to Max Clixby for the link.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2008/sep/29/philip.pullman.northern.lights

Pullman defiant over US protests against Northern Lights
By Alison Flood

Philip Pullman has revealed he was delighted to discover his novel Northern Lights was one of the most "challenged" titles of the year in America, with numerous calls made to have it removed from libraries.

Pullman's children's novel, which is sold as The Golden Compass in the US, was the fourth most challenged book in 2007, according to the American Library Association, which received 420 formally submitted complaints to libraries or schools over "inappropriate content and subject matter" last year.

Writing for guardian.co.uk this morning, Pullman said his immediate response on hearing the latest figures from the ALA was "glee".

"Firstly, I had obviously annoyed a lot of censorious people, and secondly, any ban would provoke interested readers to move from the library, where they couldn't get hold of my novel, to the bookshops, where they could," Pullman said, pointing to previous objections to the film of The Golden Compass, which he said resulted in soaring book sales.

It's a point given added weight by a promotion featuring censored books currently running at Borders bookshops. According to one of the chain's buyers, Rob Hughes, it has been"very successful", generating considerable interest in books which have been banned around the world in the past.

"It's a way of measuring the morals of today against those of yesterday," he said, adding that Borders have no plans to include books by Philip Pullman in the promotion.

Northern Lights, the first in Pullman's bestselling Dark Materials trilogy, came in on the ALA list behind Justin Richardson and Peter Parnell's And Tango Makes Three, Robert Cormier's The Chocolate War and Kevin Henkes' Olive's Ocean.

Northern Lights was challenged over its "religious viewpoint", the ALA said.

Pullman said that banning a book on religious grounds was "the worst reason of the lot".

"Religion grants its adherents malign, intoxicating and morally corrosive sensations. Destroying intellectual freedom is always evil, but only religion makes doing evil feel quite so good," he said.

This week marks the ALA's 27th annual Banned Books Week, which sees libraries and bookshops across the US running events intended to raise awareness of book censorship.

Posted: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 31 of 31 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #257010 by Pertwee's Bouffant on September 30, 2008 at 12:24 am

Good for Pullman. I've read the books and thought they were a bit waffly but told a good story. The film was pretty poor. I don't think they're quite the classics they're made out to be but its good to see an atheist writer using an atheistic point of view both selling well and kicking up a storm. Bravo, Pullman!

Other Comments by Pertwee's Bouffant

2. Comment #257031 by RussC on September 30, 2008 at 1:02 am

"Religion grants its adherents malign, intoxicating and morally corrosive sensations. Destroying intellectual freedom is always evil, but only religion makes doing evil feel quite so good," he said.

Nicely put Mr. Pullman. A new quotation for me to use.

It never ceases to amaze me that objectors don't seem to see that their protests give publicity to the very thing they wish would go away.

Other Comments by RussC

3. Comment #257040 by TalkyMeat on September 30, 2008 at 1:17 am

RussC-

Aye - I remember the crowd of placard-waving Christians outside a Marilyn Manson gig i saw in Glasgow a few years ago - the simply didn't get that they were part of the show :-)

Other Comments by TalkyMeat

4. Comment #257042 by beanson on September 30, 2008 at 1:20 am

Does anyone agree with me that the Amber Spyglass was a terrible morass of flabby, divergent story-line- a desparate effort to tie up the inconsolable threads- which completely destroyed the singular clarity and perfection of the first two books?

Other Comments by beanson

5. Comment #257069 by Luthien on September 30, 2008 at 2:28 am

Does anyone agree with me that the Amber Spyglass was a terrible morass of flabby, divergent story-line- a desparate effort to tie up the inconsolable threads- which completely destroyed the singular clarity and perfection of the first two books?

Nope :)

I find it intriguing that people seem to either love or hate these books. Perhaps people don't get the classical references? Or perhaps some people expect too much of what is essentially a kids book? The one thing I noticed though is that people who hated the books had a particular hatred of the character Lyra, calling her a spoilt brat etc. (though I'm assuming this is not the case with you since you enjoyed the first 2 books).

Other Comments by Luthien

6. Comment #257073 by AllanW on September 30, 2008 at 2:56 am

Re; Comment #257042 by beanson on September 30, 2008 at 1:20 am

Does anyone agree with me that the Amber Spyglass was a terrible morass of flabby, divergent story-line- a desparate effort to tie up the inconsolable threads- which completely destroyed the singular clarity and perfection of the first two books?

Nope :)
All three were a terrible morass of flabby, divergent storylines, badly written, pretentious, wooly-minded sanctimonious twaddle. I hated most of the characterization as being one-dimensional, unsympathetic and deeply uninspiring.

Overall a triumph for the particular literary set of friends that Pullman has coralled into promoting his books at the expense of any exercise in taste or judgement.

Other Comments by AllanW

7. Comment #257102 by njwong on September 30, 2008 at 4:14 am

Actually, I found the books to be "unputdownable". However, I agree that in terms of pacing, the first 2 books were better than the Amber Spyglass. The last book could have been shorter and tighter.

I love the plot device about killing god, that the god that had been worshipped was a false god, and that god can also get old and die. That will grate Christians for sure. The gall of Philip Pullman!

Other Comments by njwong

8. Comment #257103 by Laurie Fraser on September 30, 2008 at 4:20 am

The central concept of the trilogy was excellent; the execution was sometimes lamentable.

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

9. Comment #257107 by Cartomancer on September 30, 2008 at 4:25 am

Not as good as Terry Pratchett's Small Gods, which just about covers everything you ever need to know about the religious mind. It's a wonder nobody has ever thought to ban that...

Other Comments by Cartomancer

10. Comment #257108 by Vinelectric on September 30, 2008 at 4:26 am

Laurie

The central concept of the trilogy was excellent; the execution was sometimes lamentable.

I just felt that had to be said again.

Oh Laurie, don't get me started!

Other Comments by Vinelectric

11. Comment #257119 by beanson on September 30, 2008 at 4:44 am

All three were a terrible morass of flabby, divergent storylines, badly written, pretentious, wooly-minded sanctimonious twaddle. I hated most of the characterization as being one-dimensional, unsympathetic and deeply uninspiring.

6. Comment #257073 by AllanW

...and yet you read all three, one has to admire you steadfast resilience

Other Comments by beanson

12. Comment #257129 by shaunfletcher on September 30, 2008 at 5:01 am

The stuff isnt bad, goddidit knows it makes rowlings mawkish dribble look like the dribble it is...

But as noted, Pratchett in his more serious moments (and formerly Adams for that matter) show how intelligent fantasy/humour/childrens fiction can address these issues with wit and style. Small Gods is one of the best books written in the last quarter century, and I am not given to hyperbole.

Other Comments by shaunfletcher

13. Comment #257133 by Apeseed on September 30, 2008 at 5:10 am

Not as good as Terry Pratchett's Small Gods, which just about covers everything you ever need to know about the religious mind.

I love Small Gods and have bought it as a present for people many times.

Other Comments by Apeseed

14. Comment #257134 by AllanW on September 30, 2008 at 5:14 am

Comment #257119 by beanson on September 30, 2008 at 4:44 am

'...and yet you read all three, one has to admire you steadfast resilience '

Thank you (if that was not meant sarcastically). I just think that you are in no position to criticise a work without reading it yourself. Pratchett (as a number of people have mentioned) deals with these issues in a far more entertaining and erudite manner.

While Pullman may have a laudable anti-theist attitude and may wish to criticise religions it does not absolve him of any responsibility for the lamentable quality of his efforts.

Other Comments by AllanW

15. Comment #257135 by Laurie Fraser on September 30, 2008 at 5:16 am

Comment #257129 by shaunfletcher

I think you might be a bit confused, Shaun. We're talking about small Gods, not small Dogs :)

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

16. Comment #257147 by Toledosteal on September 30, 2008 at 5:44 am

I also thought that the Amber spyglass took a huge, weird and ultimately unnecessary tangent into the world of the roller-deer but it still served as a useful literary/scientific device.

One thing that always pisses me off about creationists is that 'life had to be just right or people couldn't survive' and its important to show at least a few examples of how different selection pressures could lead to radically different ecosystems.

Just an opinion.

Other Comments by Toledosteal

17. Comment #257151 by severalspeciesof on September 30, 2008 at 6:05 am

Comment #257107 by Cartomancer

Not as good as Terry Pratchett's Small Gods, which just about covers everything you ever need to know about the religious mind. It's a wonder nobody has ever thought to ban that...

Don't give anyone any ideas now...

Other Comments by severalspeciesof

18. Comment #257152 by severalspeciesof on September 30, 2008 at 6:09 am

Just thought of this,

Why was the word 'defiant" used in the title of the article?
I wouldn't normally use that term in that sense.

Hmmmm...

Other Comments by severalspeciesof

19. Comment #257157 by V'Ger on September 30, 2008 at 6:19 am

Good for Pullman. Great response.

Can't comment on his books though - since I've not read them. There kids books right?

Unfortunately I did see the film though... which was the longest 2 hours I've spent since the 3rd Matrix movie!

Other Comments by V'Ger

20. Comment #257163 by scottishgeologist on September 30, 2008 at 6:34 am

Talkymeat

That would have been Pastor Jack Glass's crowd wasnt it? I remember a documentary about him on BBC a few years ago - all about how he had cancer, was miraculously "healed" and how the Devil was beaten.

Next week he was dead. Some healing that...

I remember that protest against Manson (at the SECC wasnt it?) Looked ridiculous so they did.

Mind you Glass was always going on about the Roman Catholics and the Pope being the Antichrist (Billy, you there?) as well... right nutter so he was...

:-))
SG

PS: Actually it is a great pity that Jack Glass has gone - his comments re "neo-atheists" would have been something else. Would have kept you lot giggling for hours.

Anyway, talking of giggles heres another mad statement from some equally fundy nutters who inhabit my homeland (the FP's, from their latest magazine online)

"Faith receives the bare word of God as truth, even when there is a complete absence of supporting evidence, and even in the face of evidence which seems to contradict it"

(An article on Noah and the flood...)

Other Comments by scottishgeologist

21. Comment #257169 by Philip1978 on September 30, 2008 at 6:47 am

I was so upset when I went to see Marilyn Manson and did not get protested at once!

SG

"Faith receives the bare word of God as truth, even when there is a complete absence of supporting evidence, and even in the face of evidence which seems to contradict it"

Sorry, let me just clarify this one...True Ignorance, not just normal ignorance - the proper stuff you can get free whilst thinking under the influence of religion - is better than knowing what is actually going on?

Knowledge? Understanding? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Not in my church!

Other Comments by Philip1978

22. Comment #257413 by ggab7768 on September 30, 2008 at 11:52 am

V'Ger
The third Matrix was my favorite.
I went to the Matrix films looking for fun and flash.
Just couldn't get my brain around the goth kids gathered in discussion groups outside the theater.
My friends and I had several discussions after seeing Jacob's Ladder years ago, but I still feel that was a more deserving film.
Maybe I'm just getting old.
Even if I found the themes of the matrix deep (didn't) or the ideas original (didn't), I still feel it is best to never have a discussion about a movie that stars Keanu Reeves.
You're just begging for lobes to drop off your brain.

Other Comments by ggab7768

23. Comment #257414 by Thor on September 30, 2008 at 11:53 am

I enjoyed the books but haven't actually seen the movie.

However, for purely strategic reasons I was dissappointed when I heard that the trilogy would not be completed due to some boneheaded business decision the studio had made.

The movie did not do well in the US at all - but it was quite successful outside the US (take a look at the "Alltime Domestic" and "All Time Worldwide" categories here).
In fact, the discrepancy between the movie's performance worldwide vs. that in the US is uncharacteristically big ( Rank 116 vs. Rank 665 - more than I have found with any other film).
I think it is fair to assume that the religious climate in the US had a lot to do with this huge discrepancy.

Anyway, the problem was, according to a Film critic in the know that the movie "did fairly well overseas, but unfortunately for New Line Cinema, that didn't help because it pre-sold those rights"

Therefore, from a business perspective, "The movie tanked so badly that the second and third installments are not going to be made"

Too bad.

Other Comments by Thor

24. Comment #257437 by Quine on September 30, 2008 at 12:34 pm

The books are fun to read, especially for children. That was his goal, and he has done very well. I agree that extending expectation past the above goal, as in the case for Tolkien, does not work here. I am sure Pullman crys himself to sleep over this every night while looking at the sales data.

The movie presented difficulties because, not only was all this CGI fantasy required to be integrated into the live action, but the plot and nature of the worlds represented the need for far too much exposition. Somehow they expected the viewer to pick up the fragments and reconstruct this entire world without having read the book. I have seen it many times, and now have it on blu-ray where the visuals are truly spectacular. No doubt kids here in the USA who were not allowed to go see it, are passing the DVD around, and buying the books.

The protests may have tanked it for New Line, but Pullman is savoring that, proverbial, sweet last laugh.

Other Comments by Quine

25. Comment #257443 by Steve Zara on September 30, 2008 at 12:45 pm

Comment #257107 by Cartomancer

Small Gods is superb. Makes me forgive the very slight touch of homophobia in "Pyramids".

Other Comments by Steve Zara

26. Comment #257456 by lol mahmood on September 30, 2008 at 1:04 pm

Small Gods is amazingly incisive for what is ostensibly a humorous light fantasy.
I'd read a few earlyish discworld books and thought Pratchett was just a passable Douglas Adams copyist until i found Small Gods. I now think he rivals Swift as a satiricist and is grossly underrated.
The Dark Materials novels are ok, definitely a case of diminishing returns.

Other Comments by lol mahmood

27. Comment #257549 by mmurray on September 30, 2008 at 4:07 pm

The stuff isnt bad, goddidit knows it makes rowlings mawkish dribble look like the dribble it is...

Blasphemer! Seriously Rowling is a theist --- don't look to her for criticism of theism. Kind of ironic given the complaints she got from christian groups in the US. In previous years she has headed the list.

There are some good posters and badges on the ALA website for Banned Books Week

http://www.ala.org

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

28. Comment #258175 by Nogodscanuck on October 1, 2008 at 2:07 pm

I am going to buy the book and rent the movie now.

Other Comments by Nogodscanuck

29. Comment #258185 by asyouwere on October 1, 2008 at 2:33 pm

Comment #257414 by Thor on September 30, 2008 at 11:53 am

I don't think Pullman had too much say in the movie version. Having read the books, the first thing I noticed was the conspicuous absence of reference to the evil church.

For me that's what made the plot thread.

Other Comments by asyouwere

30. Comment #258217 by theantitheist on October 1, 2008 at 3:39 pm

I did enjoy the book but ....... definatly agree that Amber Spyglass got a bit waffly. It was a quick read because I had all three books together and tend to read a book quite quickly, andthought that the concept was good, the writting expressive and interesting but everything did not fit neatly.

Aarrhh read it yourselves and come up with your own opinion. It's worth that at least.

Other Comments by theantitheist

31. Comment #258680 by GreenTeen3 on October 2, 2008 at 9:27 am

I read the books when I was younger and loved them :)

And as a teen I know if you ban something or if it's controversial it just makes it more desirable!

l looked forward to the film but thought it was a disappointment especially lack of references to the church, either go the whole way and offend a few narrow minded individuals or don't bother in the first place!

Other Comments by GreenTeen3

Reload Comments | Back to Top