![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Warning: Rant. May contain (okay, okay, DOES contain) mature language. A lot of it. Err...well... seriously, I can't help it. It just comes out.
Okay, first of all, I haven't had the chance to see "The Golden Compass" yet, so this can be considered a partially-informed rant. However, I am totally aware of the plot, as I own and have read "His Dark Materials" not once, but several times. Since half the complaints I've seen about it are by people who also haven't seen it, I'd say we're on even footing.
For those of you that are unaware (seeing where I'm at, I rather doubt there IS anyone), "The Golden Compass" is based off the first book in a trilogy by Philip Pullman (and no, I'm not making up what I'm reading now; I've been reading it for most of the evening), which is, shall we say, theologically radical? However, my argument with the people who keep complaining about the heresy of it all is that it's FICTION. Fiction means that it's ALL MADE UP. Seriously. I know I'm preaching to the choir here, to use a churchy metaphor, but what kind of person has enough spare time and energy to complain about a movie they haven't seen, are not going to see, and is based off a children's tale?
As has been pointed out by various fantasy writers (David Eddings, Piers Anthony, etc), most of them choose either blatant or subtle paganism as the spiritual basis for their realm. It's just easier, since Magic was declared heresy ever so long ago. Even J.R.R. Tolkien, a man of devout faith, went the general route of paganism, although, of course, there are overlaps, due to his faith being so much a part of him. Obvious and many though they are, they still don't change the fact that the basic faith is paganistic. (I hate that word, but I can't really think of a better one just at the moment) My point is, to have this magical thing writers call "Plot," you have to have conflict. Philip Pullman was not interested in wars between men, or wars between races; he went a theological route instead. And I give him credit for having the balls to do it, let me tell you. WAS there this much hullaballoo when the books came out? I didn't have constant Internet at the time, so I couldn't say, so someone, please, let me know.
It isn't just this movie that gets up my nose on this subject: It's anything like it. There was a fair amount about The Lord of the Rings, there still is about Harry Potter. WTF??? Didn't you people like hearing stories about magic when you were kids? I know I did. Movies are the storybook for so many kids now that I'm THRILLED that they're doing so many literary adaptations, because it introduces the stories, and makes some kids want to know more. I have had my quibbles with The Lord of the Rings (laugh, Holly; go for it), but I appreciate what Peter Jackson did for this generation, not all of whom had fathers like mine. Fantasy in general is getting a much better representation because of those movies. "The Golden Compass" and "Eragon" might not have even come out if Jackson's trilogy had bombed. If they had, they wouldn't have been so well-regarded by the "mainstream" (I'm a gamer; don't get me started)........
I had a point, but I think I may have lost it (and my audience *poke* you still there?). Kidding. My point is this: There is a fundamental reason for the classifications of "Fiction" and "Nonfiction" and I think some people need to remember why that is.
Hmm... well, that could have been worse, trust me. It may get worse, after I see the movie. Who knows? (Originally posted on DeviantArt, but I decided to share with everyone else, too :D)
Okay, first of all, I haven't had the chance to see "The Golden Compass" yet, so this can be considered a partially-informed rant. However, I am totally aware of the plot, as I own and have read "His Dark Materials" not once, but several times. Since half the complaints I've seen about it are by people who also haven't seen it, I'd say we're on even footing.
For those of you that are unaware (seeing where I'm at, I rather doubt there IS anyone), "The Golden Compass" is based off the first book in a trilogy by Philip Pullman (and no, I'm not making up what I'm reading now; I've been reading it for most of the evening), which is, shall we say, theologically radical? However, my argument with the people who keep complaining about the heresy of it all is that it's FICTION. Fiction means that it's ALL MADE UP. Seriously. I know I'm preaching to the choir here, to use a churchy metaphor, but what kind of person has enough spare time and energy to complain about a movie they haven't seen, are not going to see, and is based off a children's tale?
As has been pointed out by various fantasy writers (David Eddings, Piers Anthony, etc), most of them choose either blatant or subtle paganism as the spiritual basis for their realm. It's just easier, since Magic was declared heresy ever so long ago. Even J.R.R. Tolkien, a man of devout faith, went the general route of paganism, although, of course, there are overlaps, due to his faith being so much a part of him. Obvious and many though they are, they still don't change the fact that the basic faith is paganistic. (I hate that word, but I can't really think of a better one just at the moment) My point is, to have this magical thing writers call "Plot," you have to have conflict. Philip Pullman was not interested in wars between men, or wars between races; he went a theological route instead. And I give him credit for having the balls to do it, let me tell you. WAS there this much hullaballoo when the books came out? I didn't have constant Internet at the time, so I couldn't say, so someone, please, let me know.
It isn't just this movie that gets up my nose on this subject: It's anything like it. There was a fair amount about The Lord of the Rings, there still is about Harry Potter. WTF??? Didn't you people like hearing stories about magic when you were kids? I know I did. Movies are the storybook for so many kids now that I'm THRILLED that they're doing so many literary adaptations, because it introduces the stories, and makes some kids want to know more. I have had my quibbles with The Lord of the Rings (laugh, Holly; go for it), but I appreciate what Peter Jackson did for this generation, not all of whom had fathers like mine. Fantasy in general is getting a much better representation because of those movies. "The Golden Compass" and "Eragon" might not have even come out if Jackson's trilogy had bombed. If they had, they wouldn't have been so well-regarded by the "mainstream" (I'm a gamer; don't get me started)........
I had a point, but I think I may have lost it (and my audience *poke* you still there?). Kidding. My point is this: There is a fundamental reason for the classifications of "Fiction" and "Nonfiction" and I think some people need to remember why that is.
Hmm... well, that could have been worse, trust me. It may get worse, after I see the movie. Who knows? (Originally posted on DeviantArt, but I decided to share with everyone else, too :D)
