L.B.: Cruel to be kind, pt. 1

Left Behind, pp. 367-377

Rayford was as earnest, honest and forthright with Hattie as he had ever been.

The authors don't mean this as tactful ambiguity ("I've never heard you sing better") -- they mean this. Rayford is intended in these pages to be a portrait of sincerity, honesty and candor. More than that, though, he is meant here to serve as a model of real, true Christian evangelism. The key to appreciating these pages is found near the end of this section:

Rayford felt much like Bruce Barnes had sounded the day they met. He was full of passion and persuasion, and he felt his prayers for courage and coherence were answered as he spoke.

Rayford, in other words, is divinely guided here to become the ideal evangelist. He has been transformed through prayer into a soul-savin' mofo with a spirit-led mojo. If readers want to know how to witness/evangelize/proselytize/lead-others-to-a-saving-knowledge-of-Jesus-Christ-as-their-own-personal-Lord-and-Savior, then these pages here are where LaHaye and Jenkins show them how to do it.

That makes this section of Left Behind strange and alien-seeming even for lifelong natives of the evangelical American subculture, because this is unlike any kind of evangelism even they have seen before. Rayford does not tell Hattie that "God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life." He doesn't walk her along the "Romans Road" or draw for her the "Bridge Illustration" or read to her from the kente cloth of the Wordless Book.

Rayford never even mentions Jesus. At all. His approach, instead, is to make Hattie squirm until she cries, and then to start in on the prophecy stuff:

They sat across from each other in overstuffed chairs in the corner of a large, noisy room where they could not be heard by anyone else.

"Hattie," he said, "I'm not here to argue with you or even to have a conversation. There are things I must tell you, and I want you just to listen.

"I don't get to say anything? Because there may be things I'll want you to know, too."

"Of course I'll let you tell me anything you want, but this first part, my part, I don't want to be a dialogue. "

So Rayford was as creepy, controlling and condescending with Hattie as he had ever been.

"I have to get some things off my chest, and I want you to get the whole picture before you respond, OK?"

She shrugged. "I don't see how I have a choice."

"You had a choice, Hattie. You didn't have to come."

"I didn't really want to come. I told you that and you left that guilt-trip message, begging me to meet you here."

Rayford was frustrated. "You see what I didn't want to get into?" he said.

This is what the authors mean by courage and passion. If it seems more like bullying and badgering to you, then you just don't appreciate what's at stake here. Rayford is fighting for Hattie's very soul. With eternity at stake, he can't afford to be polite and he doesn't have time for a conversation or a dialogue. The authors earnestly, honestly and forthrightly believe that this is how evangelism works. They're kind of like Amway reps, except that they believe you will die if you don't buy the soap and join the sales team.

To get a better sense of their perspective, here's Jerry Jenkins sharing his favorite analogy, one that he employs and alludes to repeatedly in the Left Behind series:

I've often said that if I had a neighbor who truly believed that the only way to heaven was by wearing a purple necklace, I might find this humorous or even repugnant, but I would be offended if he didn't at least tell me. Not telling me for fear of my negative response would prove he doesn't really care about me.

Apart from his reducing faith to merely "the way to heaven," that's not a terrible illustration of why evangelism is often a loving act. It can be, and should be, an invitation. If you're going to extend an invitation, however, you have to be willing to take No for an answer. Otherwise you're not making an invitation, you're making an offer they can't refuse.

In his purple necklace illustration, Jenkins wants to have it both ways. He wants others to understand that when he tells them about his magic Jesus necklace, it is a sincere ("earnest, honest and forthright") expression of his concern. It is evidence that he "really cares" about them. But if they find his evangelizing "humorous or repugnant," or merely unconvincing, then he wants to keep on telling about his necklace, over and over, because he's sure that anyone who really understands about the necklace will accept the truth of it and join him in wearing the necklace and hectoring others to do the same. Thus we have Rayford Steele here with Hattie, refusing to allow her to speak until he has finished explaining his weird prophecy-gospel.

Think of those sexual harrassment seminars they have at the office. Asking a co-worker out on a date is not sexual harassment. That's merely an invitation. But refusing to take No for an answer -- refusing to accept that your invitation has not been accepted -- that is harassment. In this chapter, Rayford the evangelist isn't just a harasser, he's a stalker -- calling her dozens of times a day, following her home and hanging out in the bushes outside her house. This behavior, L&J tell us, is evidence of his "passion" and "courage."

For Rayford Steele, even "apologizing" doesn't mean yielding an ounce of control:

"How can I apologize when all you want to do is argue about why you're here?"

"You want to apologize, Rayford? I would never stand in the way of that."

She was being sarcastic, but he had gotten her attention. "Yes, I do. Now will you let me?" She nodded. "Because I want to get through this, to set the record straight, to take all the blame I should ..."

Notice the restriction, the limit, the way this apology is prefaced as also an accusation. This isn't an apology, it's a legal settlement. The party of the first part herein concedes responsibility and expresses remorse for the following aspects of the dispute, such expression, henceforth to be referred to as "The Apology," shall be construed as applying exclusively to these aspects of said dispute and may not be interpreted as an acknowledgment of guilt, responsibility, liability, regret, remorse or shame with regard to any aspect of said dispute not specifically enumerated herein. ...

"... to take all the blame I should, and then I want to tell you what I hinted at on the phone the other night."

"About how you've discovered what the vanishings are all about."

He held up a hand. "Don't get ahead of me."

"Sorry," she said, putting her hand over her mouth. "But why don't you just let me hear it when you answer Buck's questions tonight?" Rayford rolled his eyes. "I was just wondering," she said. "Jut a suggestion so you don't have to repeat yourself."

That was Hattie, there, who uttered the word "Sorry." Rayford is the one rolling his eyes and holding up a hand to silence her. (I'm starting to think this scene would play better if the parts of Rayford and Hattie were played, respectively, by Dianne Wiest and John Cusack.)

"I don't mind telling it over and over," Rayford tells her, "and if my guess is right, you won't mind hearing it again and again."

Here's the thing I don't get about this scene -- or, for that matter, about all of the subsequent stalker-evangelist scenes in this book and the rest of the series: It's the End Times. Rayford has direct access to the divine decoder ring that tells him exactly what is going to happen over the next seven years. He doesn't need persuasion, he's got proof. He can demonstrate that what he is telling people is true.

All he needs to do is tell people about the next few items on the End Times Checklist and let them see for themselves soon enough: "... Then after that, there will be a ginormous earthquake, the sun will turn black, the moon will turn red and every mountain and island will be removed from its place. Here's my card, you call me after the sun turns black and we'll talk some more." That seems like a potentially more fruitful approach than just cornering people and making them shut up until you've made your pitch "over and over ... again and again."

I feel bad breaking off here and leaving poor Hattie stuck on mute for another week, but Rayford's lecture continues for several more pages, some of which is so skin-crawlingly awful that I can only take it in small doses.

Comments

[kay.c.]

mr. subjunctive@ Hattie pulled a taser from her purse and zapped Rayford with it again and again, over and over, muttering all the while: "Leave me in a goddamned taxi . . . ."

As LOL as this was--and not to spoil the fun, mind you--I am just pedantic enough to point out that it was Buck who left her in the taxi.

Though the picture of Captain Steele getting nuked for the sins of the GIRAT has its own high level of amusement.... *snerk*

[pepperjackcandy]

Yes, but if they die in the next disaster, he becomes blameworthy for not telling them. So it's pester, pester, pester, and if they're killed in the earthquake, it had better be after they're saved.

Wait. I was under the impression that anyone who dies between now and the end of the tribulation is out of the game, whether they say the magic words or not.

[Karen]

Why do RTC's think being an asshole is an effective evangelism technique?

I have a good friend who maintains that the Mormon and JW missions are not really for the purpose of obtaining converts but to reinforce the committment of the missionaries themselves, by exposing them to large amounts of rejection. I rather think that's L & J's point here. "Feel better, everyone who rejects you is going to Hell anyway." It's like a hazing ritual, but to confirm the natural superiority of RTC's.

[Ember Keelty]

Wait. I was under the impression that anyone who dies between now and the end of the tribulation is out of the game, whether they say the magic words or not.

Nope. Chloe and Buck die, and come back at the end of the series along with the Raptured.

Of course, if the authors did it YOUR way, there might actually be, you know, TENSION. And a sense of jeopardy and menace that might actually make us care about the fates of the heroes. But no.

[ako]

Wait. I was under the impression that anyone who dies between now and the end of the tribulation is out of the game, whether they say the magic words or not.

Naw, if you get killed during the Tribulation, and you're saved, you get to come back in the last book, possibly with a shiny martyr's crown. If you die during the Tribulation and you're damned, then you go to hell.

Which raises the obvious question of why the heroes go so far to keep alive, even engaging in frankly dodgy moral compromises. As far as I can tell, it's because they can win converts if they're still alive. It's not handled with much logical consistency, though. There's incidents of the characters not trying to convert someone, for fear of being killed if it backfires.

[pepperjackcandy]

This is usually enough to satisfy them until the next cycle. On one occasion they asked if I was confident of salvation, which I answered in the affirmative. They asked on what basis, and I answered through Jesus.

When I said that I was sure I was going to Heaven to a teenaged evangelist who approached me in the mall, he asked why, and I answered, "I believe in Jesus."

He was nonplus(s)ed*.

He said, "That's not exactly the answer I was looking for," paused, then said, "but I guess it's close enough," and walked away.

*On a related note, does anyone ever get "plus(s)ed"?

[JoeSmith]

Which raises the obvious question of why the heroes go so far to keep alive, even engaging in frankly dodgy moral compromises. As far as I can tell, it's because they can win converts if they're still alive. It's not handled with much logical consistency, though. There's incidents of the characters not trying to convert someone, for fear of being killed if it backfires

The cowardice of the heroes is baffling.

SPOILER ALERT

Rayford becomes the Antichrist's private pilot...putting him in the ultimate spy position...he can listen into Carpathia's plans an warn the faithful. He could end the tribulation in a single stroke by flying his plane into a mountain. Does he? Not even. his contribution to the good fight is to scowl a lot, try to convert his co-pilot and scream at his boss. He acts like a liberal working for a defense contractor...like its a shitty job, but he just couldn't turn it down.

Really, I wonder, why should he have to work at ALL? he knows the en of the world as we know it is just seven years away. He should be able to live on his savings, plus Irene's life insurance and Raymie's college find. Knowing that you are in the tribulation, shouldn't you drop everything and try to warn people to accept Christ...like NOW? I mean, its not like any of the characters are Editor in Chief of a major newsweekly!

[Judy]

The theory goes that the only force keeping Satan And His Evil Minions in check is the Holy Spirit, so the Spirit's departure is necessary for the Full Force Of Evil (i.e. the Antichrist etc) to be unleashed.

So the Holy Spirit leaves, leaving a vacuum. Since nature abhors a vacuum, Evil fills in?

Wait. I was under the impression that anyone who dies between now and the end of the tribulation is out of the game, whether they say the magic words or not.

Nope. Later when Bruce tells Ray, Chloe, and Buck that either 1 in 4 or 3 in 4, forgotten which, will not survive until the Rapture. Actually must be 3 in 4 because Bruce dies early on and at least one other dies, if I remember correctly, just before the Rapture. So death is the demarcation point past which one can't say the magic words and be saved.

[JessicaR]

The only way I'm manging to read Rayford scenes without going into a nuclear rage is imagining him as Borat. Seriously. I can pretend that his borrish misogyny is on purpose. And he's just trying to tell Hattie she can't make the sexy time with the nasty man or her vagine will hang like sleeve of wizard.

[Jake]

You know what pisses me off? I know how to pronounce Chloe. I've known how to pronounce Chloe for as long as I can remember. I've known people named Chloe in my life, never had any trouble with their names. But ever since last week's post, every time I see the word written, I think to myself "Chloy"

Stupid L&J poison *everything*

[pepperjackcandy]

Yeah. The whole "no post-Rapture conversion" thing. That's what I was thinking about. Most of the PMDs I've known believe that.

As for Calvin, the Christian Reformed Church taught, 23 years or so ago, that there was a resurrection, but no Rapture, as such. Everyone's soul stays with their bodies until Jesus's return (with no sense of the passage of time), and then the Elect are raised (cleanly, not like zombies or anything (and, yes, my Bible teacher actually put it that way)), bodies and all, into heaven. And apparently the bodies of those whose bodies are destroyed, either at the time of death or by cremation, are miraculously restored at the resurrection.

[Jeff]

She needs to be thoroughly used and shamed

But Ray is a RTC now. He would never use her (if you know what I mean -- wink wink nudge nudge.)

=================================

I thought there were some very good bits of characterization and I liked the fact that, while young, the protagonist wasn't dense in the way that, say, Harry Potter usually is, and was actually pretty clever. (My principal objection to Harry's denseness is that it exists solely for narrative purposes - a common problem in a lot of works of fiction - and as a result feels artificial, and can be quite maddening.)
I also liked that the protagonist was a girl, and was pleasantly surprised that, in a Hollywood movie, she was presented as being competent and clever and largely fearless.

That's from the book. Marisa is smart, competent and proceeds in spite of great fear (would you tell a polar bear he needs to get his ass in gear?)

[Cactus Wren]

It doesn't fit with his actions in other analogous areas. I believe that when confronted with a real-life version of the purple necklace theory he would actively seek to prevent schoolchildren from being exposed to the purple necklace theory. He would complain about the rise of the purple necklace theory in popular culture. He might even write an entire series of terrible novels specifically attacking the purple necklace theory.

Again, I'm reminded of Madeleine L'Engle's description (in A Circle of Quiet, I think) of an argument between her husband and their then ten-year-old son:

"But Daddy, you don't understand!"
"I do understand. I just don't agree with you."
"If you don't agree with me you don't understand!"

In LaHaye's case the "understanding==agreement" argument is, like Pascal's Wager, very definitely unidirectional.* If someone were to try and explain modern neopaganism, or Islam, or Hinduism, or purple-necklacism, to LaHaye -- they might get three sentences out (or not) before being cut off with, "Okay, I understand, I don't need to hear any more -- and you're wrong." But if the same individual responded to LaHaye's evangelistic overtures in a similar way, LaHaye would reject it: "No, you don't understand at all, because you're still disagreeing with me. Because I'm right. And you can't say you understand until you agree with me." Basically, "You have to listen to me, but I don't have to listen to you."

slacktivist: 'reducing faith to merely "the way to heaven,"'

Because for LaJenkins and their ilk, religion is not about How to Live, it's about How to Avoid Dying.

Good luck with that.

Fred touched on this in an earlier posting: really, Ellanjay are like preschool children learning about death for the first time. The hamster is dead, Mommy explains, because death is something that happens to every living thing. Yes, even people. -- But not to us! the child protests in horror. Not to me! It won't happen to me! Everybody else, but not me!

I feel bad breaking off here and leaving poor Hattie stuck on mute for another week, but Rayford's lecture continues for several more pages, some of which is so skin-crawlingly awful that I can only take it in small doses. -- Slack

Then don't post it page-by-page. Do a summary.

But ... I'm enjoying it this way. And I don't have a copy of the book.

*Next time you're confronted with Pascal's Wager, try replying as I did once to a Mormon co-worker. "But what if you're wrong?" he liked to intone direly, and I'd say, "But what if you and I are both wrong, and [our Muslim boss] is right?" Never did get an answer ...

[telesilla]

Which raises the obvious question of why the heroes go so far to keep alive, even engaging in frankly dodgy moral compromises. As far as I can tell, it's because they can win converts if they're still alive. -- ako

To get Convert Points, which can be redeemed later for valuable and exciting prizes!

[Jesurgislac]

Jeff: That's from the book. Marisa is smart, competent and proceeds in spite of great fear (would you tell a polar bear he needs to get his ass in gear?)

I hate these pointless name changes, book to movie. In the book, she's called Lyra.

[Dahne]

Wait, they changed the name? Now that's just plain confusing.

[Zonko]

It'd be comforting to remember that these aren't real characters, these are cardboard cut-outs of characters that have been left out in the rain to get all soggy and gross. Too bad I've met people who talk like Rayford, and it's not even about the End of the World and Eternal Salvation (tm), it's stuff like clothes and cooking and mind-numbingly mundane junk ABOUT WHICH THEY ARE ALWAYS RIGHT.

That "I didn't want a dialogue" line is just so spot on, I wish it were in a good book, from a character who was meant to be a very flawed and socially challenged person.

=======================
I've read the Golden Compass trilogy but haven't seen the movie. I thought it had potential, and I enjoyed bits and pieces, but I got turned off by how extreme and unsubtle the author's attacks on monotheism/Christianity/Catholicism were, and how they tended to interfere with the pacing of the rest of the book. I really liked the idea central to the books, and the idea is totally atheistic so having a religious villain makes sense, but I didn't think thinly veiled criticism helped add anything but annoyingly verbose monologues.

On the other hand, cutting the atheistic themes out of the movie ruins the set up for the Big Reveal.

[Jesurgislac]

I loved the books - and didn't register that anyone might have a problem with the unusually realistic fictional depiction of the Catholic church until I read people calling this unusual realism an "extreme and unsubtle attack". I guess religious people are more used to fictional depictions that dwell on the nice and ignore what actually happened.

I thought the fictional use of God was kind of neat, but revealing it is a bit of a spoiler.

I read in an interview last weekend (and was thoroughly annoyed by it) that Nicole Kidman claimed she'd have refused to appear in the film unless it was censored of all that "atheistic" stuff.

[Ryan Ferneau]

"Join me, Link, and I will make your face the greatest in Amway! Or else you will DIE."

[Ryan Ferneau]

Oh, and, um, I think Jeff just named the wrong character.

[Zonko]

@Jesu-
Sorry. I'm not trying to defend the Catholic church's history. I wasn't quite certain how to say what I meant, so it came out garbled. Alas, no edit button for me.

A realistic tyrannical Catholic church is fine, it makes a fantastic villain, but I felt he went to extreme lengths to explain how evil it was, when the actions got the point across quite well. It's been a while since I've read it, so my memory is probably exaggerated, but I remember a lot of boring dialog/exposition on the subject. My problem isn't with the Catholic villains thing, it's with the way it just dragged on and on.

[Francis]

Okay, seriously, show of hands. Who would stick around for the conversation after an exchange like this?

*raises hand*

I only hope the audience brought either popcorn or marshmallows.

And Jesu, I felt that I was being hit over the head with a hammer by Pullman's church when it really wasn't necessary to do any more than show.

[inge]

Geds: Who would stick around for the conversation after an exchange like this?

Depending on history and mood, I might. Either for a screaming match, or because I'm just too baffled and want to find out what makes that guy tick. (Kind of the same reasons that keep me in internet debates far too long.)

If I wasn't in the mood for a screaming match and from history already knew what made the guy tick, I'd probably inform him that he had finally lost what used to pass as his mind and see that I find urgent business elsewhere.

[inge]

Bugmaster: But, after a while, they just stopped coming... I wonder why that was...

Did you ask them not to step into your flat because they might disturb the sacrifices for the fairies you had set up, but you would gladly talk to them on a long, refreshing walk over the muddy fields?

Amazingly enough, the friend of mine who used that tactic had the Mormons still come back for more. Those were tough Mormons.

[inge]

A. Kennedy, on witness/evangelize/proselytize/lead-others-to-a-saving-knowledge-of-Jesus-Christ-as-their-own-personal-Lord-and-Savior: why should Germans have all the fun

Won't work on that, more's the pity. Works only with chains of nouns, and only if every noun specifies another. :-(

[mr_subjunctive]

@kay c. 11:16 PM --

Whoops. I could make a more reasonable-sounding excuse, but the truth of the matter is, I have to concentrate really hard to keep Ruck and Bayford distinct in my mind. They're not what you'd call vividly-drawn characters. Unless the scene revolves around their respective professions, my brain will melt them together into some kind of composite alien superdork.

Ooo! "Composite Alien Superdork!" Band name?

[Praline]

Jenkins wants to have it both ways.

Indeed. I quote Bob Altemeyer's 'The Authoritarians', talking about how fundamentalist Christian authoritarians behave when confronted with an issue of principle. (Just as background: He gave one group of fundies a scenario in which Christian school prayer and teaching is enforced on non-Christians, whether or not non-Christians like it, and they said 'the majority rules'; he gave another group the same scenario with the word 'Christian' replaced by 'Muslim' or 'atheist', and they said 'minorities have rights too'. Ie, they backed up their positions with contradictory arguments, depending on whether the religion in the example was their own.)

They'll pull whichever argument suits them out of its file when necessary, but basically they are unprincipled... they have a big double standard that basically says 'Whatever I want is right.' The rest is rationalization, as flexible and multi-directional as a reed blowing in the wind.

http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/chapter4.pdf - for the chapter

[Praline]

Oops - the quote, which I should have italicized for clarity, is

They'll pull whichever argument suits them out of its file when necessary, but basically they are unprincipled... they have a big double standard that basically says 'Whatever I want is right.' The rest is rationalization, as flexible and multi-directional as a reed blowing in the wind.

[hamillhair]

To be honest, I didn't notice any anti-christian stuff in the Dark Materials trilogy at all. I mean, the religion in the books is evil and presented as such, and the series is very anti that religion, but there's no similarity at all between the book's religion and the Christianity that I've grown up with, so it didn't bother me.

[ako]

By and large I liked the messages and themes about religion in His Dark Materials, but I did think it got to be too much of a lecture in places. Especially in the later books. Really, setting the Church up, having people follow those actions out of obedience to their religious principle, and just letting the characters see what's going on works without repeated asides about how evil it is that the evil Church does evil things evilly.

As for how realistic it is, and how much it resembles Christianity or the Catholic church, the whole thing reminds me of a discussion I saw about a piece of fanfic. The writer had taken a character that most fans loved or hated, and written a story about a possible future which drew primarily on her worst qualities. It was done quite intelligently, and definitely built on elements from the source material, but it was definitely slanted towards getting a negative view. The people who adored the character considered it bad characterization with little resemblance to the character they loved. The people who disliked the character were all going, "I can totally see that."

I think that's rather how Philip Pullman wrote Christianity.

[Jon]

For the sake of clarity, in the movie the protagonist's name is Lyra.

[Fraser]

I'll vote for edo to win the thread. Because Vainamoinen could totally kick Nicky Carpathia's butt.
Of course, so could Shaft.
I don't think Pullman's books are atheistic at all: Despite his view of God, there's definitely higher powers out there, even if they're not what they pretend to be. And when the angels start lecturing near the end, they're just as heavy-handed as the kind of fiction Pullman says he hates. Despite which, I enjoyed the books quite a lot. And I don't see how they can avoid the religious issues in book three and have a book.
Unfortunately, while I'd like to go see it as an Up Yours to the fundies, I have heard it's lacking in oomph.
On Israel surviving the nukes, I think most people would assume either it had an anti-nuclear shield of some sort, or spies who'd disabled Russia's arsenal. But the last thing L&J would want is even a half-assed alternative explanation, because that would spoil the point that the RTC position is so obviously the truth no intelligent moral person would deny it.

[Zzyzx]

"as referenced by The Tomorrow People, that bbc kids show I watched on nickelodeon when I was much much younger."

It amazed me to watch the DVDs of the show and notice all of the horrible stuff that my 13 year old self just blissfully swallowed. The discs were worth it for the commentaries though.

[damnedyankee]

As LOL as this was--and not to spoil the fun, mind you--I am just pedantic enough to point out that it was Buck who left her in the taxi.

True, but would it be any surprise that she'd be developing some serious protagonist issues after the shabby treatment she's been getting?

[Froborr]

You finally pulled me out of the woodwork with this one, slacktivist. I've never actually had anyone seriously try to proselytize to me in any serious way, so your links to instructions on conversion were the first time I saw how it's done. It left me curious: Who, exactly, is the "target" you're supposed to use these techniques on?

It seems to me like they assume that the person you're talking to already believes that God, Christ, and sin exist and that the New Testament is a valid source of true statements -- Christians, in other words. I mean, if you say to someone "Jesus is the only way of connecting man to God" and they say "No, you can use Yogic meditation", you're kind of stumped, aren't you?

I guess I'd just sort of assumed evangelists mostly proselytized to non-Christians. Maybe that explains why I hardly ever, and then only half-heartedly, get preached at by them.

[Froborr]

On Pullman: He's a very, very Christian atheist, and it's reflected in his books. It's quite clear from reading his books and interviews and essays that he (much like Richard Dawkins and his ilk) is an atheist because he doesn't like Christianity. He never seems to notice, for example, that Dust can *talk* and is the origin of all souls. Either a variant, non-Christian Gnosticism or Hinduism seems to follow quite naturally. If the existence of something like Dust -- a sentient universal field that is responsible for the existence of consciousness -- were proven, most honest atheists would pretty much have to convert to some form of Dustism.

This doesn't seem to occur to Pullman. To him, the Christian religion is the only one that *might* be true, and if it isn't, then all religions are false. He thus sets up a false choice between being a Christian and being an atheist, and then tries to hammer into you that being a Christian is bad.

In the real world, this *does not work*. I am not an atheist because I dislike Christianity; I have nothing against Christianity. I am an atheist because I honestly believe it's true -- in a world with multiple religions and belief systems, that's the *only* reason to pick one over the others. Saying "Christianity is bad" doesn't give you a reason not to be Jewish or Hindu or Wiccan.

On the other hand, the books were really fun if you ignored the preaching. I liked the multiple worlds, and the demiurge aspect, and loved the characters of Lyra, Will, and Iorek.

[patter]

*On a related note, does anyone ever get "plus(s)ed"?

Good question, PJC. And you can be "disheveled," but is anyone (s)heveled?

Fred, I just don't see Dianne Wiest and John Cusack in these roles; maybe Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy?

[MikhailBorg]

I may be in the minority here, but that's okay. I warily bought The Golden Compass, having been burned by trilogies before, and was completely caught up in it. The next day, I rushed out to buy the other two, and the end of the last was completely infuriated at the author. Not for the religious themes, but for what I felt was horribly poor execution of them. I couldn't believe I had slogged through the last two books for that ending.

Books two and three seemed filled with diversions that did nothing but pad out the page count and attempt to put Pullman on the same shelf as Tolkein or Herbert for world-building. I was especially sick of Lyra's mother, the scientist character, and the Knife-wielding boy by the end of things, and the resolution of it all felt utterly preposterous to me.

Honestly, if they are nerfing the religious elements for the Hollywood version in favor of character development and storytelling pace, I might well find it an improvement.

This is, of course, my sole opinion :)

[Criada]

>>I have a good friend who maintains that the Mormon and JW missions are not really for the purpose of obtaining converts but to reinforce the committment of the missionaries themselves, by exposing them to large amounts of rejection.<<

And to learn about people. I've got a good friend who let the Mormons stop by his house every week, and that's what he said. My friend was fascinated by them --and utterly immune to their few conversion attempts. They'd talk about all sorts of things, but rarely Why My Friend Should Be A Mormon. It seemed to be a relief for the missionaries. :-)

[Edo]

Because Väinämöinen could totally kick Nicky Carpathia's butt.
Of course, so could Shaft.

Oh man, the scene where Väinämöinen sings Nicolae Carpathia into the swamp would be epic to write. Although "Yakko's World" is a bitch to write in iambic octameter...

[Edo]

Sunken neck-deep in the quagmire,
Nicolae continued singing:
"Kyrgyzstan and Montenegro,
And remember San Marino,
What my atlas calls Rhodesia,
All the parts of Micronesia..."
Stopping, realizing he was
Sunken chin-deep in the quagmire,
Nicolae called out in terror:
"Help me, save me, Väinämöinen!
I am bested, I surrender!
All my tasteful jewelry's slimy,
And my Gucci suit is grimy,
And I'm chin-deep in a quagmire.
I can't swim, O Väinämöinen!"
Ancient Väinämöinen heard him;
Underneath his beard he smiled
For a moment, then kept singing,
Singing louder, singing clearer,
Singing all his verses backwards,
Singing Nicolae Carpathia
Neck-deep, chest-deep, waist-deep, until
Ancient Väinämöinen sang his
Mud-encrusted foe to safety.
Then said ancient Väinämöinen,
"Leave me, youthful Robert Redford!
You who challenged me to singing,
You have shown yourself the lesser.
Nicolae, you are exiled
Evermore from this fair country;
All the rest may be yours, but you
Have no place in Kalevala."

[scyllacat]

The problem with being me here, is that I have so many conversations I want to get into, but come in too late.

I hear that Steele is an overbearing sexist mother—
You shut your mouth!
I'm talking about Rayford Steele
Oh. Then we can dig it.

Fraser, you rock. That's perfect.

Okay, seriously, show of hands. Who would stick around for the conversation after an exchange like this?

Geds, that is exactly what I thought. And there's another glimpse of the idea that reality could creep in. Hattie isn't ACTING like Steele is being nice, she's acting like he's a guilt-tripping, pestering a--hole. Why is she the one who is supposed to be broken?

Later, car nails the whole "See what you made me do!" creepiness of that passage.

Rayford was frustrated. "You see what I didn't want to get into?" he said.

You didn't want to get into your control-freaky way of handling this? Your bad behavior toward a woman you pretend to care about? Somehow, I get the feeling this IS how LaJenkins carry on their evangelism, by browbeating and guilt tripping people into it, then refusing to allow them the right to complain about it.

mmack: Indeed. Chick tracts are the only things that even come close to the kind of evangelism handed out in LB.

"You chose to come here, Hattie."
"You brought me here at gunpoint!"
"I don't want to go into that."

Let's not bicker and argue about who killed who!

And later on, McJulie says, It doesn't fit with his actions in other analogous areas. I believe that when confronted with a real-life version of the purple necklace theory he would actively seek to prevent schoolchildren from being exposed to the purple necklace theory. He would complain about the rise of the purple necklace theory in popular culture. He might even write an entire series of terrible novels specifically attacking the purple necklace theory.

So true.

In re: Door-to-door evangelism: When one of our number opened the door wearing only a g-string and her wig (all 300 lbs. of her), the evangelicals stopped bothering us...

It would depend on the paragraph, I guess. I know I'm having a hard time hiding my contempt for these paragraphs...

And burgundy gets 2 stars for the LOL.

By far, one of my "favorite" earworms is Copa Cabana. I have gotten it stuck in my head off and on for over 25 years now:

His name was Rayford
He was a pilot
With no concerns about his soul
Till the Rapture came and stole
His loving wife and
their precious junior,
Now he knows the end is near
And there's the Antichrist to fear
He marshals all his wits
To make sure Hattie sits
And listens till his scary spiel
blows her mind to bits
It's the end times
The Armageddon
Miracles, prophecies, check off your list please
to the showdown
of Armageddon....

Just so you know, I have a friend who was not raised in a Christian home, and the idea of "belief" as an article of religion was foreign to him. The first time, as a child, when he was asked by a playmate if he believed in Jesus, he thought about it and said, brightly, "I believe in Six Flags!" It gives me hope that my increasingly shaky belief structure may not be necessary.

Thank you, Cactus Wren, for reminding me of this:
"But Daddy, you don't understand!"
"I do understand. I just don't agree with you."
"If you don't agree with me you don't understand!"

My childhood and my relationship with my father was shaped a lot like this, and it's been a noxious weed to get out of my arguments. If they don't agree, there's nothing that further explaining will do.

You're all spoiling my anticipated enjoyment of an atheistic holiday movie. Thank you, Jesurgislac. :-P The only thing I have had to say to people who didn't like the criticism of the Church was "Shoe fit too well?" I assumed that this being a book full of alternate realities, that this was just one of them. Although, I guess I thought it was contradictory to have an atheism that posits souls/daemons. Maybe I've been missing out on the good parts of atheism, or maybe the souls were just another fantastic element. :)

[Wakboth]

It's been a while since I read the books, but isn't the Church in "Golden Compass" a some sort of "Reformed Catholic Church", with Pope Calvin as one divergence point?

Anyway, I think the rough consensus on the books is that the first one is excellent, the second one okay, and the third one a preachy failure.

[jamoche]

The writer had taken a character that most fans loved or hated, and written a story about a possible future which drew primarily on her worst qualities. ... The people who adored the character considered it bad characterization with little resemblance to the character they loved. The people who disliked the character were all going, "I can totally see that."

Long before the final Harry Potter book came out, I joined an RPG that played Dumbledore as a highly manipulative "do whatever it takes for the cause" type. We got slammed for making him "omg!evil when he's such a nice guy!!1!". Then the last book came out. Oops, we were right!

This doesn't seem to occur to Pullman. To him, the Christian religion is the only one that *might* be true, and if it isn't, then all religions are false. He thus sets up a false choice between being a Christian and being an atheist, and then tries to hammer into you that being a Christian is bad.

You know, I think you've nailed why I didn't make it through the first book. I have no problems with my religion being the bad guys - I know history, after all - and I love well-written villains. I just hate being hit by the clue hammer when the story's doing a good enough job getting the point across on its own, and I want the story to make sense - given the setup, the alternative to this version of Christianity is some other belief system, because duh, angels and demons exist!

[hf]

SPOILER ALERT

Rayford becomes the Antichrist's private pilot...putting him in the ultimate spy position...he can listen into Carpathia's plans an warn the faithful. He could end the tribulation in a single stroke by flying his plane into a mountain. Does he? Not even.

Hah! So at least some literalists do believe we shouldn't try to stop the Antichrist because he serves God's plan! While this fits the text -- Jesus asks Peter, 'Don't you think I could summon an army if I wanted to avoid the cross?' -- it also makes conservative Israelis look stupid for allying themselves with these people. L&J Inc already believe we live in the End Times. They could decide any day that the Antichrist is ready to destroy Israel and we shouldn't stand in his way.

By the way, y'all know His Dark Materials has good witches, right? I admit they don't call themselves Wiccans.

[Jake]

he (much like Richard Dawkins and his ilk) is an atheist because he doesn't like Christianity.

I'm starting to think that there's a contest on, and whoever and misrepresent Dawkins the most wins a prize. I wonder why I even bother.

Forborr, have you read TGD? Have you ever even heard Dawkins speak? He is not an atheist "because he doesn't like Christianity." He is an atheist because he doesn't believe in any deity. He talks about Christianity the most because it's what he's most familiar with, but he addresses the question of why other religions should equally be rejected as well.

I think this is like the myth about plan B preventing implantation; the religious right started it, now everyone on both sides of the argument buys it. Ditto all these straw-Dawkinses I see thrown around. It's bullshit.

[Funkula]

if they are nerfing the religious elements for the Hollywood version in favor of character development and storytelling pace, I might well find it an improvement.

Haha. No, that's not what they did. As someone who hasn't read the book, characterization and pacing were my two biggest gripes with the movie. There was no underpinning for the way the characters interacted and things happened just as fast as the director could fling them at the screen.

It's probably a bit better if you've read the book and can fill in all the missing necessary context, but it's a pretty crappy movie on its own.

[Froborr]

jamoche: given the setup, the alternative to this version of Christianity is some other belief system, because duh, angels and demons exist!

I don't really see that as the clincher. The angels and daemons both appear to be part of the natural order of the world, rather than supernatural. The "angels" are simply aliens that happen to closely resemble mythological angels -- indeed, they created the myths of angels and God for their own purposes, according to the third book. On the other hand, life after death, a soul that exists independently of the body, and a cosmic mind (dust) can all be shown to exist in this world. Any belief system, including atheism, has to take them into account.

Hmm... when you die, your soul merges with the general soul-field of the universe before eventually being reborn as parts of other things... sound familiar to anyone? It's real close to Hinduism, and dead-on to the Minbari religion in Babylon 5.

hf: By the way, y'all know His Dark Materials has good witches, right? I admit they don't call themselves Wiccans.

They also don't remotely resemble Wiccans in belief or practice. Not to mention that they can fly and live for centuries. Last I checked, Wiccans can't. At least, they haven't so far. Admittedly, Wicca is only 50 years old, so it's possible some Wiccans can live for centuries and haven't gotten around to it yet. ;-)

scyllacat: Just so you know, I have a friend who was not raised in a Christian home, and the idea of "belief" as an article of religion was foreign to him.

Thank you! It really bugs me when people equate "faith" and "religion". Christianity is pretty much unique in privileging faith over works. Most religions emphasize works much more strongly. Some barely care about faith at all (certain kinds of Hinduism, for example). Admittedly, virtually all religions include doctrines that, if you don't believe them, there isn't much point to doing the works. For example, if you don't believe in Nirvana, there isn't much point to engaging in Buddhist meditation. BUT -- and this is the big distinction from Christianity -- if, for some reason, you followed all the Buddhist practices and meditated and everything, even though you didn't believe in Nirvana, according to Buddhism you would move closer to Enlightenment.

[Selcaby]

I guess I thought it was contradictory to have an atheism that posits souls/daemons. Maybe I've been missing out on the good parts of atheism, or maybe the souls were just another fantastic element. :)

I think Pullman's souls and daemons (and witches and armoured bears) are natural phenomena within Lyra's world. Any fool (in that world) can see that they exist, and so they aren't articles of faith the way they are in the real world, and they're not particularly connected with religion, any more than the stars, the properties of pi, or human intelligence, or anything else theists think God made, are to us. In that world it would be perfectly consistent for an atheist to believe in souls.

Belief in an afterlife is a different matter. In the third book it turns out that after death people from every world, regardless of religion, go to a version of the Greek underworld. But this is not part of any religion Lyra's been taught.

I haven't seen the film yet, but I probably will this week. I enjoyed the first book as a rollicking adventure, so if the film delivers on that score I'll be happy. I'm also looking forward to some Oxford-spotting, since I live there. (This is also a good reason to watch Inspector Morse.)

[Froborr]

Jake: Forborr, have you read TGD? Have you ever even heard Dawkins speak? He is not an atheist "because he doesn't like Christianity." He is an atheist because he doesn't believe in any deity. He talks about Christianity the most because it's what he's most familiar with, but he addresses the question of why other religions should equally be rejected as well.

I saw his BBC special, and I've seen him debate a few times. Enough to know that I have no desire whatsoever to read his book. Richard Dawkins does indeed not believe in any deity, but the only one he knows anything about is the Christian one. He admits that quite readily. That's my point: He has rejected *every* religion while only knowing anything about one, just like Pullman. In the Dawkins-verse, everyone is either an atheist or a born-again Christianomuslim suicide bomber. He makes that view quite clear in his BBC special: as far as he is concerned, going to church and flying airplanes into buildings are just steps on the same continuum.

Perhaps it is inaccurate to say that Dawkins is quite the same as Pullman. Pullman appears to be simply unaware that other religions exist. Dawkins, on the other hand, seems to believe that all religions are identical to ultra-conservative, militant Christianity. That, in other words, there is atheism and there is Religion, and Religion is solely and entirely responsible for every evil act ever perpetrated in the name of any religion, while every good act ever perpetrated in the name of a religion occurred despite Religion.

Dawkins is a seething mass of hate that gives atheists a bad name. I regard him much as my Christian friends regard Jerry Falwell.