Right now I don't have the time to post something more substantial, but for the moment, suffice it to say that I agree fully with Jonathan.
However... I do feel the need to point out some of the fallacies I noticed in the quote.
Pullman read the Narnia books as an adult and found them deeply disturbing. "Lewis was celebrating, upholding certain activities and attitudes which I am explicitly against, such as bullying, racism, misogyny.
Girls are no good, says C.S. Lewis. Girls are only good as long as they act like boys. If they're tough, they're okay, but intrinsically they're inferior. People with dark skins who probably come from somewhere sinister like the East, and almost inevitably smell of garlic, are always a sign of evil or danger."
Bullying: Nowhere is this ever celebrated or viewed in a positive light in the books. Bullying does appear in the Silver Chair--one of the main characters in this book is the victim of bullying, which is condemned in the book in no uncertain terms.
Racism: As Elrohir already noted, Aravis, a Calormene, is a major character in one of the books. She also happens to marry Cor, an Archenlander. (Personally, I find the obsession over supposed racism rather ridiculous. Sure, actual instances of racism exist even now. But calling a book racist because several antagonists have dark skin? Come on, people.)
Misogyny: "Girls are no good, says C.S. Lewis. Girls are only good as long as they act like boys." I have a big problem with this statement. Lucy (a major character in several of the books) certainly doesn't act like a boy. Nor Polly. Nor Jill (unless being a Girl Scout or being physically fit automatically makes you boyish). I could go on and on.
In the final Narnia book, "The Last Battle," the older girl is excluded from salvation because she has become too interested in lipstick, nylons and invitations. "In other words, she's growing up. She's entering adulthood," says Pullman. "Now this for Lewis, was something . . . so dreadful and so redolent of sin that he had to send her to Hell. I find that appalling."
C.S. Lewis does make it quite clear that Susan has drifted away from Narnia (i.e. the faith). But nowhere do you read that she is necessarily excluded from salvation. The others all entered the new Narnia because they had died in their world. Susan didn't. Lewis was not stating that Susan's interest in "lipstick, nylons, and invitations" was leading her to Hell. He was rather describing how her focus had strayed from her faith to more trivial things--she was allowing these things to choke out her faith. Lewis, however, presumably leaves the rest of her character open-ended. He doesn't say whether she stayed that way or eventually returned to Narnia.
That's my take on it, at least; if I happen to be wrong, feel free to correct me.
Alisha wrote:
Also quoted from the above article. Pullman has some issues but when taken into context it's not so bad.
My suggestion: Read the books as educated adults. Don't let kids read the books as they are ambiguous and there is no real conculusion.
Agnosticism IS a worldview that sets itself against God. It's not truly ambiguous, nor does it serve as any kind of middle ground.
No, I haven't read the Golden Compass--and I don't intend to, at least not in the near future--but Pullman's intentions are quite clear nonetheless, from things I've read about him and from things he himself states.
[edit] fixed formatting. <_<
[edit2] also syntax. >_>
But I probably won't.
I know! They could re-release it!
