Philip Pullman rewrites the life of Jesus

[zalena]

With all due respect to the man who gave us the Sally Lockhart series and the first two volumes of His Dark Materials (not a big fan of the third and feel most comparisons to Paradise Lost are a bit overwrought) was it really necessary for Philip Pullman to write a novel about a dual (meaning literally twinned) Jesus?

http://www.slate.com/id/2252546/

Comments

[borbor-chan.livejournal.com]

it sounds like a very silly book! There are like a hundred of those from turn of the century (20th, that is) liberal Protestant German theologians.

It would be interesting to read Pullman, but I might go crazy trying to dissect all the references to Enochic and Gnostic texts. Speaking of which, the name of the article was very misleading; the Gospel of Philip was discovered at Nag Hammadi 65 years ago :)

http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/gop.html

[zalena.livejournal.com]

You asked me this winter if I thought all religion began as children's stories. At the time I wasn't sure if I agreed and I still have some very strong arguments against this viewpoint. But since you raised that question, I have come to the supposition that it is quite possible that many religions END as children's stories. I wouldn't know the first thing about recognizing Gnostic or Enochic references in Pullman and neither would the vast majority of his readers, but I have no doubt those references are there. Likewise, everyone recognizes the messianic metaphor of Aslan in Narnia, but remains quite ignorant of the rest of Lewis' references to other religions and texts.

I'm posting the following more as references than required reading:

A copy of Pullman's original 'Darkside of Narnia' post that started it all from the Guardian in 1998:
http://www.crlamppost.org/darkside.htm

Laura Miller's profile of Pullman in the New Yorker in 2006:
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/12/26/051226fa_fact

One of Pullman's objections to much of children's literature is that it celebrates childhood at the expense of adulthood and very often does not allow its characters to grow up or mature. Therefore it is ironic that he issued the following statement as part of his acceptance speech for the Carnegie medal:“There are some themes, some subjects, too large for adult fiction; they can only be dealt with adequately in a children’s book.”

I appreciate the sentiment, but I have to admit, as much as I love literature for young people---and continue to recognize it as a literature in its own right---I am primarily of the opinion that for the most part it IS for children. Transitional. I have a lot more thoughts on this and on our cultural obsession with the return to 'Eden' vs the embrace of knowledge, but I have already veered dangerously off-topic and owe the Gospel of Philip a glance before I go to bed.

[frostmorn.livejournal.com]

It was not necessary. And, I’ll admit, I’ll be surprised if it’s good, although I certainly hope it will be interesting. But I wonder how much of Philip Pullman’s extraordinary power to write will be lost in his evident zeal to write *about*?

[zalena.livejournal.com]

Said much more succinctly and eloquently than I did. Revisiting the links I posted in the comments, I couldn't help but feel however much I've enjoyed Pullman's writing, I'm not sure that I'd enjoy Pullman. Of course, I've always thought (even before His Dark Materials) that Pullman's work was marketed towards children---due to its genre aspect and the age of its protagonists---but more appropriate for adults. Perhaps there is a legitimacy issue here: wanting terribly to be relevant to grown-up literature that is pushing his need?