The Evil Compass

I hadn't even realised there was any outrage over The Golden Compass until the other day I was on Snopes, checking out what was new in the world of internet hoaxes and urban legends. On the site, there was examples of two separate emails currently doing the rounds -- warning parents of the dangers of the forthcoming film, based on Philip Pullman's first novel in the His Dark Materials trilogy.

In Britain, at least, the first book was called Northern Lights, but I understand overseas it was called The Golden Compass, after the altheiometer which features in all three novels. If you've not read them, you won't know what an altheiometer is, but that doesn't really matter -- it looks a bit like a golden compass, and fits in with the subsequent books being named after important objects in the plot: The Subtle Knife and The Amber Spyglass.

I mentioned the subject of these emails was to warn parents, and in a similar way to with the Harry Potter books, it's because they are apparently anti-Christian. The books may be aimed at teens, but I'd not really thought too deeply into the messages they contained.

I was actually a little surprised that there was no claims that "His Dark Materials" was a reference to the devil, or that the books contained evil magic or heretical ideas (like parallel universes). Instead, they focus on that Philip Pullman is either an atheist or agnostic. Clearly, he must also hate freedom, want to corrupt our children and tortures small animals -- because that what atheists do.

The emails also claim that Pullman intends his books to be the antithesis of C.S. Lewis' clumsy and overtly Christian Narnia series.

I'm slightly disappointed they don't go so far as to accuse him of being satanic, nor attributing wild and hilarious quotes like the ludicrous invented J. K. Rowling quote about Jesus sucking Satan's cock.

The kind of moral outrage and religious panic that these emails embody is rare to England -- and usually reserved for immigrants, refugees, Muslims and video games, all those sorts of evils that will destroy our society and corrupt our children and possibly even steal our jobs and eat our pets. I think, for the most part, even the likes of the Daily Mail will probably be unconcerned about it -- and I'm half tempted to at least try and stir up some. Not that Pullman needs the publicity, last time I checked Northern Lights was currently the best selling paperback in the country.

But really, what this all comes down to for me is that I wholeheartedly approve of the themes behind Pullman's novels. While they are not the rabid anti-Christian rants some would have us believe, they do make a case against organised religion. Although there is no evidence to suggest Pullman has ever said as much, if they are intended as the opposite of Narnia, I couldn't be happier. If it is okay to expose children to one viewpoint, it is not only okay but important to expose them to counter-views.

I personally have described myself as both atheist and agnostic, although I lean more towards agnosticism since I don't believe one can ever know for certain and like the Nietzschean perspective that we can't ever know if God exists because by very definition the nature of God would be impossible for us to comprehend. I would not want my children growing up into young adults and adults believing in something without having questioned it, or held it up to scrutiny. I would be more upset about films with overtly religious messages wanting to brainwash our children than I would about questioning authority.

The first email describes Pullman as "a proud atheist who belongs to secular humanist societies" -- and I'm wondering why this is somehow a bad thing? I actively welcome someone who is openly agnostic or atheist -- too often people look down their noses at agnosticism as being a kind of wishy-washy inability to commit, or atheism as a lack of values. I would encourage more fiction -- or popular entertainment, or whatever you want to call it -- with counter-arguments to these ideas.

I think the last reviewer puts it best when they reason "[Pullman's] fundamental objection is to ideological tyranny" -- perhaps the kind of ideological tyranny perhaps that is outraged at a differing viewpoint?


And for anyone who has read and enjoyed the books, go here and follow the daemon link to find out what yours what be. Mine is apparently a snow leopard, which isn't bad -- I was worried at first it might be a woodlouse.

Enduring Love

Unfortunately, this is not a post about the Ian McEwan novel -- nor of the quite lacklustre film adaptation.

Instead, while talking to my therapist last night we somehow got on to the topic of love -- in the round about ways our discussions tend to have. Wholly and entirely unrelated to any concepts of love specifically, I told him how I sometimes worry that my presence in other people's lives will be a negative one -- and especially so if they like me.

I told him of the feelings of discomfort I've had in previous relationships where I felt the other person liked me more than I liked them, and of other relationships where I've been let down gently because they just didn't care for me enough.

It seems like sometimes we have ideas or expectations for what we think we should be feeling in a situation, and it for me at least it can get in the way of just living in the moment.

I remember however-many hundreds of years ago when I was dating Fiona and sometimes feeling like a phony because I didn't think I felt as strongly about her as she did about me. Similarly, San and I broke up any number of times when one or other of us would decide we didn't feel strongly enough about the other person to be in a relationship.

My therapist made a very strange comment about how he didn't really believe in "love" -- I expect he meant the "chocolate boxes and roses" red lace cards sort of interpretation of love. He said something like how do you even define love anyway? Far from being stumped by this question, I'd actually given the whole subject a lot of thought in the past when I have loved, been loved, and thought I loved various people.

I define love as a passionate affection.

It sounds quite simple, but the words to me have a depth of meaning. For example, passionate can mean several different things all at once -- it can mean sexual as well as an intensity of emotion, and very subtle nuances all in between. This definition applies to the many different kinds of love I can feel -- I can say that I love my brother (despite our difficult relationship), that I love my parents. I also love my cat, love my friends and in the past have loved certain individuals. All of these I would say were passionate affections -- each in subtly different ways, but no less deserving of the title of love.

Years ago when San and I were going through some sort of difficult period, we broke up when she said she didn't love me, or wasn't sure if she did. That was when I went away and tried to define love, came across the "passionate affection" definition and suddenly had a revelation. I realised that through nobody's own fault, the passion had gone for her -- there was just affection, and that wasn't enough. On similar occasions I'd tried to argue that I thought she did love me, even if she didn't define it as such -- but not then. Other times, San would counter the argument with one consisting of didn't she deserve to feel love -- to find someone she loved. There are no counter arguments to this.

The last time we broke up it was again because she didn't love me, and although she had been telling me she did for a little while, she hadn't meant it for some time. It seems funny that some people would never dream of faking an orgasm would tell you they loved you when they didn't.

My therapist mentioned that he'd been married twice, approaching now his third marriage. I asked when you marry someone don't you promise to love them? Seems a little odd to marry -- three times, at that -- and not mean it when you say you love them. Which is why I think it's the romanticised, Valentines sort of love he was talking about.

Either way he helped me to get some of my previous relationships and friendships and everything in between into a better perspective. I think the general argument was stop over-thinking things and lighten up (even if it was never phrased as such). Getting hurt is perhaps the only guarantee you have -- but it doesn't negate the whole thing. You can't stop someone else from being hurt, you take responsibility for yourself and your own feelings -- and so should they. This responsibility also means you can't stop someone else being hurt, so don't sweat it.

He showed me that so long as you don't deliberately set out to mislead or hurt someone else, you can only be yourself.

And from there, just let the chips fall where they may.



I also had a discussion with my therapist about blogging, but I think that deserves a post all of its own.